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

[Pinkizzy]

DV and fact seem to be anathema.

He wants to be a serious 'investigative journalist' yet he manipulates his witness interviews to suit his narrative and is therefore not one who can be relied upon to report unadulterated fact.

It's also relevant that he has written more so called 'crime thrillers'....add 'Finding Suzy' to that genre

Trust him at your peril.

You may not agree with SJL's deposition site, however he states facts up to that point. That's why you should take a peep at his book, read it and possibly treat the last chapter as a work of fiction

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I believe she did go to Shorrolds. I think the SJL's Fiesta was one of the sighting of 2 Fiestas on Shorrolds.
The 2 men (one with a moustache) sitting motionless in a parked dark saloon by the elderly lady returning to her parked red volvo is correct and relevant to the crime.
HR's photo id will turn out to near to spot on.
The 2nd photo id will also be relevant to the abduction bearing in mind that JI's said his hair was longer(collar length) this either relates to the 2nd man or a third man which I think is likely.
My interest in Wardo Av, Munster rd area is that I think its familiar to group who carried it out the abduction, as the male with moustache was said to have been seen in a cafe there in the JD case perhaps it was where some of the group met or one of the group did live in the area like Wardo Av.


Was she taken on Shorrolds? Without the fly in the ointment BW's sighting I would say it was highly likely.
Did she get in a car with Kipper after the 37SR viewing again highly likely.
I think there is some truth in the HR's initial account, this later changed because he had been 'got at' by looking out the window he had seen Kipper and was able to identify him.


If I put an estate agents head on I wonder if at the viewing Kipper had proposed a deal regarding other another property or multi properties still under construction which could be the reason SJL would have gone with him.
If the Bristol businessman is in construction this would tie in, but its just as likely she went with him in his vehicle under a ruse to discuss business over a lunch somewhere.


these are just my opinion like everyone Im just trying to make sense of it all

HR's first description to MG has got to be reliable as there was nothing to that could influence him.

To imply that the people that murdered JD were also involved in SJL's abduction would need more than a similar chap with a thin moustache.

The offences were thirteen years apart....JD's murder was a clinical assaination. For this to be the case we get into the realms of both ladies falling foul of either organised crime or a state, with resulting sanctioned action and the same organisation having a leading hand.

There is no evidence for this. It's just a bottomless rabbit hole to go down!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

You may not agree with SJL's deposition site, however he states facts up to that point. That's why you should take a peep at his book, read it and possibly treat the last chapter as a work of fiction

The excerpts that @Konstantin kindly posted a few days ago confirmed my view of DV having no investigative credibility, after listening to his podcast.

He deliberately uses leading questions with his witnesses, all aimed to support his desired outcome.

He has fallen into the age old trap of using or manipulating the evidence to fit the chosen offender/narrative.

The thing is that as a former detective he will be well aware of how that has been used in the past and will also know how to interview without leading a witness and following where the evidence leads.

That DV astonishingly ignores all his training and experience in how to investigate gives him absolutely no credibility.

Why on earth would I pay and waste my time reading it, when I would have zero confidence in what I am reading?

 

[WestLondoner]

She could have gone to the PoW at any time that evening since it was near her flat. There was no urgency as she knew that her items were safe, and people there had already had the opportunity to read the diary contents, if that was a concern.

However she might have had another personal reason for going out of the office.

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.

 

[WestLondoner]

(snipped for brevity)

However his theory presupposes that the POW errand could not wait and SJL was OK with risking pissing off her employers on a fake errand which she had not done before.

Weeeeeeell, do we know she'd never done that? Did anyone go through all her diaries and prove she'd never done that? Per DV, and also even AS IIRC, MG was never really persuaded the appointment was real, even in '86. He thought she actually went shopping, in Putney. It feels to me like she wrote that so that if the Big Cheese came into the office and said "Gurdon, where is everyone?!!", there's something in her diary that covers his back.

 

[Cluesleuth]

HR's first description to MG has got to be reliable as there was nothing to that could influence him.

To imply that the people that murdered JD were also involved in SJL's abduction would need more than a similar chap with a thin moustache.

The offences were thirteen years apart....JD's murder was a clinical assaination. For this to be the case we get into the realms of both ladies falling foul of either organised crime or a state, with resulting sanctioned action and the same organisation having a leading hand.

There is no evidence for this. It's just a bottomless rabbit hole to go down!

Other members will be aware of the other numerous comparisons I have made between the two crimes and the people mentioned in them - some of the people having who were questioned in the JD case

Its entirely possible that the same people were involved.

Every crime murder for hire has its own specific instructions as to how and where the victim will be targeted.

With respect you dont know if the original plan was to abduct JD. I doubt this but without knowing the intention of the perpertrator you cannot be 100% certain.

The crimes are 13 years apart but the people who are hired to carry out this type of crime do so over many years - unless they are caught, or in prison for lesser crimes which could be possible in this case.

Criminals are caught years after a crime because they commit crimes in similar ways and or in locations close by

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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.

Or there was that amazing invention, known as the telephone book, which the majority of households were listed in 1986.

Contacting one in the group would give access to contact details for all.

 

[Cherwell]

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.

Well, possibly, but everyone was on landlines then and phone numbers were easier to remember, with consistent area codes. She would probably have known the numbers of regular contacts by heart, and directories were more in use too. I think she could have coped for a few hours.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Its entirely possible that the same people were involved.

What evidence do you have to indicate this?

Every crime murder for hire has its own specific instructions as to how and where the victim will be targeted.

I don't know how much you know about the workings of Organised Crime but I will say one thing. Once a 'hit' has been commissioned then the time, place, method is the decision of the contracted killer.

You wouldn't instruct a professional and then proceed to tell them how to do their job, would you?

Of course if you have specialist knowledge then becoming a verified WebSleuther may help us all.

 

[Cherwell]

Other members will be aware of the other numerous comparisons I have made between the two crimes and the people involved them.

I've only just figured out who you're referring to - Jill Dando? It's OK to name victims, or anyone deceased.

 

[Konstantin]

Weeeeeeell, do we know she'd never done that? Did anyone go through all her diaries and prove she'd never done that? Per DV, and also even AS IIRC, MG was never really persuaded the appointment was real, even in '86. He thought she actually went shopping, in Putney. It feels to me like she wrote that so that if the Big Cheese came into the office and said "Gurdon, where is everyone?!!", there's something in her diary that covers his back.

I hear you. Not sure if it's known if she did or didn't do that. She was described as conscientious, but that doesn't mean she didn't lie here or there. Did they not check to see if she'd done that or might have done that before? Or was it a case of, well let's not throw her under the bus and get her in more trouble? Or well we all do it, let's change the subject not shine more light on this awkward area?

I wonder what made MG not sure about the appointment though, as he did go there to check. Maybe that she didn't put any entry into the system about this mysterious client? Or other things going on? SJL did have secrets and was good at compartmentalizing her life, and was it MG who said maybe we didn't know her as well as we thought we did.

She couldn't have slipped out at lunch without a reason though, you are right.

THere are so many little threads with the timeline that are just not cleared up!

 

[WestLondoner]

Every hypothesis has significant holes!

 

[Konstantin]

Or there was that amazing invention, known as the telephone book, which the majority of households were listed in 1986.

Contacting one in the group would give access to contact details for all.

Amazing that back in those days people must have been much easier to find in terms of phone numbers than today where people hardly use landlines.

SJL didn't seem to be concerned about her missing diary over the weekend, which was a busy one. Was that because she was so busy so no time to call people? She was at work on Saturday and you'd expect if she was aware it had gone missing, given it was literally the next morning after it walked, she would have been calling round from her work phone. If it was that important to her?

It's one of those things about this case that just doesn't make sense to me. If her stuff was so important, and it must have been regardless if you believe in the POW theory or not (I don't find it that convincing in the sense that she was harmed there, but for definite, it was somewhere she was planning to go, which is important), why was there no apparent concern over the weekend about it? It does suggest losing it on Sunday...doesn't mean she was present at the POW then. I am not very convinced by the phone box theory either so what else could have happened?

 

[Konstantin]

Every hypothesis has significant holes!

There is just so much that's a mystery and the timelines are all very vague. I honestly am flabbergasted there was no clock in Sturgis. Did everyone wear wrist watches in those days? It's not like they had computers or phones to check and timings were important to them as they literally made money off attending appointments.

 

[Cluesleuth]

I hear you. Not sure if it's known if she did or didn't do that. She was described as conscientious, but that doesn't mean she didn't lie here or there. Did they not check to see if she'd done that or might have done that before? Or was it a case of, well let's not throw her under the bus and get her in more trouble? Or well we all do it, let's change the subject not shine more light on this awkward area?

I wonder what made MG not sure about the appointment though, as he did go there to check. Maybe that she didn't put any entry into the system about this mysterious client? Or other things going on? SJL did have secrets and was good at compartmentalizing her life, and was it MG who said maybe we didn't know her as well as we thought we did.

She couldn't have slipped out at lunch without a reason though, you are right.

THere are so many little threads with the timeline that are just not cleared up!

I think the question of wether the appointment was genuine was because there they couldnt find a client card written out under the name Kipper so that raised suspicion.
I darent mention the 'key' to Shorrolds again but if we knew for sure that she did take it it would at least show she intended to go there.
Until we are told differently by the Met Im going with she took the key as this was stated by the Detective on the Crimewatch programme. Sue Cook the presenter of the programme made a point of saying that case had been obscurred by rumour and gossip the reconstruction about to be shown is based entirely what is known.

Crimewatch Oct 1986 17.38 into the video

 

[Cherwell]

Amazing that back in those days people must have been much easier to find in terms of phone numbers than today where people hardly use landlines.

Yes, and what's more, we knew a lot of numbers off by heart because we had to physically dial them rather than just scroll to a name and press a button. You didn't need to dial an area code if it was a local call, and if it wasn't you could easily look it up if necessary. Now the 5 digit prefixes for mobile numbers are as random as the rest and we rely on our devices to store the numbers. I doubt many people keep written notes of numbers.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I doubt many people keep written notes of numbers.

Very true athough it's wise practice to have backup settings and to enable a restoration of contacts, calendar, SMS and chats if the device is lost or corrupted.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Amazing that back in those days people must have been much easier to find in terms of phone numbers than today where people hardly use landlines.

SJL didn't seem to be concerned about her missing diary over the weekend, which was a busy one. Was that because she was so busy so no time to call people? She was at work on Saturday and you'd expect if she was aware it had gone missing, given it was literally the next morning after it walked, she would have been calling round from her work phone. If it was that important to her?

It's one of those things about this case that just doesn't make sense to me. If her stuff was so important, and it must have been regardless if you believe in the POW theory or not (I don't find it that convincing in the sense that she was harmed there, but for definite, it was somewhere she was planning to go, which is important), why was there no apparent concern over the weekend about it? It does suggest losing it on Sunday...doesn't mean she was present at the POW then. I am not very convinced by the phone box theory either so what else could have happened?

AL says he thought they were stolen on the Friday night Im intriqued by this what would make him think that they had been stolen rather than lost?

Perhaps the concerns about them were secondary to the social engagements she arranged for that weekend if we hadnt been made aware that some of the contents were of a salacious manner would we put as much emphasis of its importance.
SJL had other diaries and a female officer was given the task of going through them was it in fact these diaries that contained the salacious content and not the lost diary which I understand was a pocket diary.
Certainly Monday at work she was presented with a challenging situations that would command a lot of her time to attend to an argument with another negotiater over a sale which she would want to secure in her favour, and an office that was not functioning as it should normally with MG out of the office, some office staff who did not covering viewings were doing so, KP the man who interviewed her for the position at Sturgis hirer and firer who said to Dv in interview that usually he only visited offices when he had been made aware of a problem.
You can see why she would arrange to pick her items up later that day.
MOO

 

[rls11]

I think we all assume SJL was keen to get her belongings back for the diary (because of potentially important or salacious information contained within it.) However, could it be simpler than that: she needed her cheque book to pay for something that day? Cheques were far more important in 1986 than they are now...

This case is SO frustrating!

 

[Konstantin]

You can see why she would arrange to pick her items up later that day.

Well also the pub was close to her home so rather than faff around wasting time in traffic driving there on her lunch hour she could have just gone there on her way home. Pubs open late.

I don't buy the she was playing tennis thing. It's from an interview with DL her mum, DL was not a reliable narrator about SJL's life, and no one came forward to confirm plans that she was going to meet them that evening. You would go to wait to see if she showed up. I think DV is clutching onto that to try to boost his hypothesis that she could not have gone to the pub later that evening (on her way home from this alleged tennis match to a pub that opened til 11 pm...)