UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #4

[asyousay]

We just know too few facts to really come up with anything conclusive.

The most logical is she got carjacked after leaving Sturgis or she made it to SR where she showed somebody the property and then was talked into going somewhere else.


DV has gone very quiet on his pet theory because he obviously hasn’t found any evidence to support his claims imo

 

[Terryb808]

I don't see why Suzy would meet someone at Stevenage Road just to jump into someone else's car, I mean why would she do that?

If she had agreed to meet an unknown person for lunch, why not just drive to meet them at an arranged place?

To me, the car appears to have been left there by someone who left it rather quickly - someone who abandoned it and had no intention of ever returning to it.

I agree, she doesn’t appear to have driven to Stevenage Road herself and her car was abandoned by A N Other in a hurry.

On this basis which witness is right WJ or BW, time for WJ is approximately 12.45pm, while for BW it would be between 3.00 & 5.00pm.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Looking at it logically, she should have felt reassured that the items were safe and that the bank was aware so that no fraudulent use could be made of her chequebook. It's not as though she suddenly discovered they were missing and was anxious to retrace her steps to find them before someone stole them. I'm sure most of us have experienced the panic of that kind of situation.

Maybe or maybe not, when there’s deeply personal stuff written and your confidential info is being held in a local down at heel pub very close to your home, a pub you don’t even frequent but is filled with the ‘locals’.

 

[asyousay]

Maybe or maybe not, when there’s deeply personal stuff written and your confidential info is being held in a local down at heel pub very close to your home, a pub you don’t even frequent but is filled with the ‘locals’.

The landlord didn’t know her and she didn’t go in there so why would she care?


This is not like her parents finding her diary.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Couple of points, CV originally (According to the police who interviewed him in July 86) never mentioned the two phone calls or the to paper with Sarah’s phone number on it.

Then one year later the story of the phone calls is added to the account the police officer’s took in July 86.

IMO there’s no way an experienced police office back in July 86 would loose such an important piece of information.

Secondly her Sturgis colleague JC said when she arrived that Monday morning she was stressed about her lost items, and that she phoned around trying to locate them.

At some point during the morning she located them and her mood changed. This is generally reflected in AS’s book, therefore, I am personally confident that the account is correct.

IMO the biggest and one and only verifiable clue we have in all this case is this changed account and the seemingly blatant LIE about the piece of paper because as you say, there is no way the officers a) not made a note about the piece of paper in their notepads at the time of attending and then subsequently have both completely forgotten AND lost the piece of paper AND it also never turned up anywhere else.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

We just know too few facts to really come up with anything conclusive.

The most logical is she got carjacked after leaving Sturgis or she made it to SR where she showed somebody the property and then was talked into going somewhere else.


DV has gone very quiet on his pet theory because he obviously hasn’t found any evidence to support his claims imo

Absolutely. There is evidence some of which is inconsistent in respect of what eye-witnesses report.

Nevertheless, logic tells me that unless SJL was laying a false trail, which she had no history of doing and certainly not in her diligent work persona, then she did indeed have an appointment with the so named 'Mr Kipper' and attended 37 SR as per her work diary and the witness reports, which provide corroboration.

What happened after this is unknown, in spite of some uncorroborated eye-witness evidence. I believe that SJl's Fiesta was abandoned by her abductor, where it was found, not long afterwards.

The police eliminated all other possible identified offenders, leaving only JC who could not be eliminated and for which there was significant circumstantial evidence. The eye-witness evidence provided details long before JC was a suspect, which very much supported his known MO in terms of attracting women.

Unfortunately, that the case is unsolved frustrates many, who seek to skew, dismiss and/or embellish certain aspects in an effort to give 'credibility' to alternative theories, which are just not supported by the evidence in totality.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

The landlord didn’t know her and she didn’t go in there so why would she care?


This is not like her parents finding her diary.

We don’t know one way or another how she felt, except the account of work colleague that she was upset. My argument is that being the case, there are numerous reasons why she could have felt extremely uncomfortable having her personal stuff in the local boozer and those ideas cannot be ruled out. She could have been anyway minded about it - indignant, anxious, suspicious, angry, fearful, ashamed, … keep adding emotion words, we have no idea. Surely nobody would be fully AT EASE with the situation and have narry a care in the world. If nothing else, it’s surely puzzling and inconvenient to know your stuff has been found at a pub.

 

[Crusader21]

Either way I agree SJL never drove her Ford Fiesta to Stevenage Road, it just doesn’t fit.

post in error, apologies

 

[Cherwell]

One person did have an inkling because he arrived first and opened the office, shortly afterwards Suzy arrived, and they had a brief time alone before the other Sturgis staff came in.
Suzy arrived a approximately 08.45am, her colleague JC said she was stressed bout her lost items, this suggests to me that she had not missed them over the weekend and only became aware of their loss when she went out to work on Monday morning.
JC also said that she spent time during the morning “phoning around” to locate them, she obviously succeeded because her mood changed from concern to upbeat. this is reflected in AS’s book.

There you are then - once she knew that her items were being safely held for her, she stopped worrying. The urgency was gone.

Maybe or maybe not, when there’s deeply personal stuff written and your confidential info is being held in a local down at heel pub very close to your home, a pub you don’t even frequent but is filled with the ‘locals’.

I don't think she would be carrying anything like that around in her handbag - a handbag she was in the habit of casually leaving around in the office when she went out. A personal diary, if she even kept one, would be kept at home.

I am 100% sure that the diary she carried in her bag was the notebook type in which you note down addresses, phone numbers, appointments, and aides-memoire. None of this would be of interest to bar staff in a pub that she didn't visit regularly.

The info that SL was going to the PoW to collect her items at 6pm only comes from CV, and of course he would say that, would he?
As has been said before how could she collect them at 6pm when she had an important 'closing deal' house viewing elsewhere at that time?

I suspect that the arrangement was that she would pick them up after 6 pm. There would be no need to make an "appointment", she just needed to call in when the pub was open, ie after 6 pm.

 

[Crusader21]

To say that HR 'heard THE door slam' would be correct if he saw it too. That he heard A door slam would be correct if he didn't see it first hand. These are subtle differences but they are of critical importance. Accuracy is essential.

I disagree.

Harry Riglin's living room in no35 Shorrolds Road, was in easy ear shot of no37's door.

I lived in a similar property where I did not need to actually see next door's door close to know that it had closed. A physical vibration and a distinctive slamming sound told me that my neighbour's door had slammed shut without the need to actually see it!

Accuracy is indeed essential! Incorrect assumptions however, can prove costly ...

 

[asyousay]

We don’t know one way or another how she felt, except the account of work colleague that she was upset. My argument is that being the case, there are numerous reasons why she could have felt extremely uncomfortable having her personal stuff in the local boozer and those ideas cannot be ruled out. She could have been anyway minded about it - indignant, anxious, suspicious, angry, fearful, ashamed, … keep adding emotion words, we have no idea. Surely nobody would be fully AT EASE with the situation and have narry a care in the world. If nothing else, it’s surely puzzling and inconvenient to know your stuff has been found at a pub.

Well her colleges who spent the morning with her didn’t use those words.

I am sure it was a inconvenience to have lost her stuff but a even bigger inconvenience for her to lie about a appointment and risk getting caught out to go and pick up something that she could do on her way home from work without any repercussions.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I disagree.

Harry Riglin's living room in no35 Shorrolds Road, was in easy ear shot of no37's door.

I lived in a similar property where I did not need to actually see next door's door close to know that it had closed. A physical vibration and a distinctive slamming sound told me that my neighbour's door had slammed shut without the need to actually see it!

Accuracy is indeed essential! Incorrect assumptions however, can prove costly ...

The text referred to the sound of a door slamming. There was no mention of vibration or distinctive slamming.

Certainly a witness statement may give opinion or reason for believing it was a certain door that was slammed, but without the visual reference at the material time there cannot be certainty.

However, in court only expert opinion is admissible! Which needs to be considered when taking a statement from an eye (ear) witness.

Methinks the defence would bring the witness to the point where they admit they can't be entirely certain where the sound of the slamming door came from and accordingly place doubt upon their entire testimony.

This is why statement taking is the art of recording the witnesses evidence but within the bounds of admissibility in court. The same would go for hearsay evidence.

 

[Crusader21]

Methinks the defence would bring the witness to the point where they admit they can't be entirely certain where the sound of the slamming door came from ...

You'd imagine the number of doors in question would be limited by earshot / the distance from where the witness heard it (in his living room).

Then the loudness the door slamming sound was heard, faint (far away) or quite loud (nearby).

Then how distinctive and familiar the noise was.

I'd say someone like HR would be very certain a partcular door slamming sound was that of his nearby next door neighbours door without actually seeing it.

Realistically, what other door could it have been!?

 

[WestLondoner]

If it wasn't the door to 37SR, but some random other door, then there was presumably no viewing there. Thus does yet another misleading piece of HR's sighting come to light...

 

[asyousay]

If it wasn't the door to 37SR, but some random other door, then there was presumably no viewing there. Thus does yet another misleading piece of HR's sighting come to light...

Why wouldn’t it be that door that he heard?

I know when my neighbour leaves home as he slams the door and it has a certain sound to it when it slams shut. There is definitely no mistaking that sound.

 

[Terryb808]

Why wouldn’t it be that door that he heard?

I know when my neighbour leaves home as he slams the door and it has a certain sound to it when it slams shut. There is definitely no mistaking that sound.

The thing here is that according to the police there was no evidence that SJL went into 37 SR.
Therefore, the door slamming could not have been this house. It’s likely that HR did hear a door slam and assumed that the couple he saw came out of 37 SR.
HR’s witness account is far from reliable on all fronts.

 

[asyousay]

The thing here is that according to the police there was no evidence that SJL went into 37 SR.
Therefore, the door slamming could not have been this house. It’s likely that HR did hear a door slam and assumed that the couple he saw came out of 37 SR.
HR’s witness account is far from reliable on all fronts.

Their entire premise is she went to SR. Since when is there no evidence she went there?


Eye witnesses place her there - multiple people place her at that appointment.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

You'd imagine the number of doors in question would be limited by earshot / the distance from where the witness heard it (in his living room).

Then the loudness the door slamming sound was heard, faint (far away) or quite loud (nearby).

Then how distinctive and familiar the noise was.

I'd say someone like HR would be very certain a partcular door slamming sound was that of his nearby next door neighbours door without actually seeing it.

Realistically, what other door could it have been!?

There are unknown factors involved. These are just some possibilities:

1. Hearing impairment
2. Overly acute hearing
3. Delusional sound
4. Impairment from drink/drugs/illness
5. Sound from radio/TV
6. Mistaken association of it being the door to 37 SR

Most of these possibilities should have been addressed when the statement was taken and there should have been clear reasons documented in the statement to support HR's assertion that he heard the door to 37 SR bang and what his response to it was, if any.

As I have said before, any defence barrister will challenge the belief of the witness that it was the door to 37 SR they heard bang.

The point is that admissibility of opinion in court is in the gift of expert witnesses only. A non-expert witness would have to concede that they could then not be certain, because they are not experts in acoustics or another relevant field.

This leaves room for doubt regarding the source of the sound, where any half-decent KC would insinuate that if the witness could not be certain of the source of the sound, what else are they unsure about?

 

[Terryb808]

Their entire premise is she went to SR. Since when is there no evidence she went there?


Eye witnesses place her there - multiple people place her at that appointment.

I didn’t say there was no evidence she went to SR, but that the police found no evidence she went into 37 SR, no trace whatsoever, so if she went to SR, and never went into 37 SR.
Why did she go there?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Their entire premise is she went to SR. Since when is there no evidence she went there?


Eye witnesses place her there - multiple people place her at that appointment.

I would say that the sightings support a woman matching SJL's description i/c of a male, as described, O/S 37 SR at the material times, which support SJL's diary entry.

This is good eye-witness evidence, which is enhanced by a description of SJL with lighter hair than the published photograph, which was correct in that she'd had her hair highlighted only three days before. This gives the witness credibility in terms of their observation and recall.