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

[Whitehall 1212]

Just the 'dark' bit maybe..?

Just exploring the baseline of acceptability.....animal, vegetable or mineral?

 

[Eastend Eagle]

I guess he'll announce something on the anniversary of SJLs disappearance

Pinkizzy, back on Thread#2 in your post#1174, you stated that someone said that SL turned right out of Sturgis not left, can you give more information about this and the source? Thanks

 

[Pinkizzy]

It was taken from DV's book @Eastend Eagle

 

[Eastend Eagle]

It was taken from DV's book @Eastend Eagle

OK, thanks, but am I right in thinking that we do not know whether DV meant she turned right on foot out of the office door or she drove right on the Fulham Road relative to the front of the Sturgis office? If we don't know, has anyone enquired of DV what he actually meant?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

OK, thanks, but am I right in thinking that we do not know whether DV meant she turned right on foot out of the office door or she drove right on the Fulham Road relative to the front of the Sturgis office? If we don't know, has anyone enquired of DV what he actually meant?

Who is the original source of this information? Does DV say?

The inconvenient points that DV ignores by such a supposition are:

1. The diary entry re 37 SR
2. SJL taking the keys for 37 SR
3. SJL taking particulars for 37 SR
4. SJL's departing comments to colleagues
5. The witness sightings in SR

Did DV provide any evidenced rationale for dismissing all these?

To advance a hypothesis that SJL travelled other than to Shorrolds Road, two things are required:

1. Credible and supported reasons to dismiss the evidence that SJL went to Shorrolds Road

2. Evidence that SJL went elsewhere

As I see it, both are still completely lacking.

 

[Eastend Eagle]

Who is the original source of this information? Does DV say?

The inconvenient points that DV ignores by such a supposition are:

1. The diary entry re 37 SR
2. SJL taking the keys for 37 SR
3. SJL taking particulars for 37 SR
4. SJL's departing comments to colleagues
5. The witness sightings in SR

Did DV provide any evidenced rationale for dismissing all these?

To advance a hypothesis that SJL travelled other than to Shorrolds Road, two things are required:

1. Credible and supported reasons to dismiss the evidence that SJL went to Shorrolds Road

2. Evidence that SJL went elsewhere

As I see it, both are still completely lacking.

I was just enquiring what DV said and what was the source of the information, did it come from one of SJL'S colleagues and, if so, who?

 

[WiseOwl]

Who is the original source of this information? Does DV say?

The inconvenient points that DV ignores by such a supposition are:

1. The diary entry re 37 SR
2. SJL taking the keys for 37 SR
3. SJL taking particulars for 37 SR
4. SJL's departing comments to colleagues
5. The witness sightings in SR

Did DV provide any evidenced rationale for dismissing all these?

To advance a hypothesis that SJL travelled other than to Shorrolds Road, two things are required:

1. Credible and supported reasons to dismiss the evidence that SJL went to Shorrolds Road

2. Evidence that SJL went elsewhere

As I see it, both are still completely lacking.

DV's theory of Suzy going to the POW that lunchtime is based on his belief that she didn't take the keys to Shorrolds Road with her when she left the office. This is despite the fact it clearly states in AS's book (Chapter 2, Page 6) that the estate agent manager (MG) remembered her coming behind his desk to pick up the keys. DV also ignores the Crimewatch reconstruction which shows MG banging on the door to 37SR - presumably as Suzy had taken the keys!

DV also reasons that the police did not go to SR that evening, but instead went there the following morning and entered with a set of keys. This is based on his interview with MJ, one of the two DC's who were manning the Fulham CID office between 2 - 10 pm on the day Suzy disappeared (DV's book Chapter 23 Page 94).

In AS's book Page 10, it describes how, after the call from MG, two plainclothes detectives were sent to enter and search 37 Shorrolds Road. Nothing of apparent relevance was found, but a constable was posted on guard duty outside. Then on Page 12 it says that the two detectives who had been to SR were then asked to search Suzy's flat, and to take PL (Suzy's father) with them.

However, when DV interviews MJ he clearly remembers going to Suzy's flat with his colleague SH & also PL, but has no recollection of going to SR. He recalls breaking into Suzy's flat but insists that he & SH did not go to SR.

So what happened here then? Did MJ go to SR but has somehow forgotten about it? Were two other police officers sent to SR and AS has got it wrong in his book? Or is DV correct when he reckons that no-one went to SR that evening?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

DV's theory of Suzy going to the POW that lunchtime is based on his belief that she didn't take the keys to Shorrolds Road with her when she left the office. This is despite the fact it clearly states in AS's book (Chapter 2, Page 6) that the estate agent manager (MG) remembered her coming behind his desk to pick up the keys. DV also ignores the Crimewatch reconstruction which shows MG banging on the door to 37SR - presumably as Suzy had taken the keys!

DV also reasons that the police did not go to SR that evening, but instead went there the following morning and entered with a set of keys. This is based on his interview with MJ, one of the two DC's who were manning the Fulham CID office between 2 - 10 pm on the day Suzy disappeared (DV's book Chapter 23 Page 94).

In AS's book Page 10, it describes how, after the call from MG, two plainclothes detectives were sent to enter and search 37 Shorrolds Road. Nothing of apparent relevance was found, but a constable was posted on guard duty outside. Then on Page 12 it says that the two detectives who had been to SR were then asked to search Suzy's flat, and to take PL (Suzy's father) with them.

However, when DV interviews MJ he clearly remembers going to Suzy's flat with his colleague SH & also PL, but has no recollection of going to SR. He recalls breaking into Suzy's flat but insists that he & SH did not go to SR.

So what happened here then? Did MJ go to SR but has somehow forgotten about it? Were two other police officers sent to SR and AS has got it wrong in his book? Or is DV correct when he reckons that no-one went to SR that evening?

Over the course of this thread, I've read conflicting reports of whether the keys were taken from the office or not, quoted as being from different sources, but the biggest clue to whether she did or not is if MG nor the office had the keys and therefore couldn't enter SR himself.

 

[WiseOwl]

Over the course of this thread, I've read conflicting reports of whether the keys were taken from the office or not, quoted as being from different sources, but the biggest clue to whether she did or not is if MG nor the office had the keys and therefore couldn't enter SR himself.

As MG is seen in the reconstruction knocking on the door & peering through the window of 37SR it would suggest that he didn't have the keys to the property. However, when interviewed by DV for his book MG doesn't seem to recall what happened to the keys, he even gets a little flustered by the questioning. This interview did take place in November 2018 (DS book Chapter 29 Page 127), so perhaps his memory isn't so good after 30-odd years!

I wish we had more details of the call from the police to MG on the evening Suzy disappeared. We know he phoned them at 6.45 pm, and they phoned him back 10 minutes later. I would presume they asked him for the keys to 37SR so what did he tell them? We know two detectives were sent to search 37SR (AS book page 10), but how did they enter the property? Did they break in or did MG meet them with a set of keys? Whatever the scenario, MG seems to have forgotten what happened as regards the keys to SR that evening.

 

[WestLondoner]

The problems with MG supposedly having seen SJL departing are twofold. One, he was supposed to be at lunch, so how was he still at his desk? And two, if he was at his desk, why did SJL need to write anything in her diary? Why not just tell MG where she was going?

This feels like something embedded into the mythology that didn't actually happen.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

DV's theory of Suzy going to the POW that lunchtime is based on his belief that she didn't take the keys to Shorrolds Road with her when she left the office. This is despite the fact it clearly states in AS's book (Chapter 2, Page 6) that the estate agent manager (MG) remembered her coming behind his desk to pick up the keys. DV also ignores the Crimewatch reconstruction which shows MG banging on the door to 37SR - presumably as Suzy had taken the keys!

DV also reasons that the police did not go to SR that evening, but instead went there the following morning and entered with a set of keys. This is based on his interview with MJ, one of the two DC's who were manning the Fulham CID office between 2 - 10 pm on the day Suzy disappeared (DV's book Chapter 23 Page 94).

In AS's book Page 10, it describes how, after the call from MG, two plainclothes detectives were sent to enter and search 37 Shorrolds Road. Nothing of apparent relevance was found, but a constable was posted on guard duty outside. Then on Page 12 it says that the two detectives who had been to SR were then asked to search Suzy's flat, and to take PL (Suzy's father) with them.

However, when DV interviews MJ he clearly remembers going to Suzy's flat with his colleague SH & also PL, but has no recollection of going to SR. He recalls breaking into Suzy's flat but insists that he & SH did not go to SR.

So what happened here then? Did MJ go to SR but has somehow forgotten about it? Were two other police officers sent to SR and AS has got it wrong in his book? Or is DV correct when he reckons that no-one went to SR that evening?

Thanks for the reply @WiseOwl.

I noticed some errors in AS's book in terms of police systems and procedure. They aren't significant but demonstrate that AS is not infallible when understanding how the Metropolitan Police operated at the time.

My understanding is also that DV spins what his witnesses say, don't say, how they say it, to support his narrative, rather than just presenting the statements without any embellishment.

DV also reasons that the police did not go to SR that evening, but instead went there the following morning and entered with a set of keys.

For DV, as a former Met police officer, to believe this, is disingenuous.

The duty inspector, KT, will have been the uniformed inspector with initial responsibility for ALL incidents on the Fulham police division (FF) during his shift. In respect of SJL, once the missing report was received, he will have liaised with the duty CID, due to the particular circumstances. However, he would also have assigned his uniformed officers to conduct any standard police, yet time driven missing person enquiries.

Just such an enquiry is to check the place where the missing person (SJL) is last believed to have been, i.e. 37 Shorrolds Road, in this case. It is possible that she could have come to harm at the address either through accident or crime. It is very likely that a uniformed officer would have been assigned to do just this.

Police would not need to be in possession of the keys, as any constable has power to enter and search under S17 (1(e)) PACE 1984 for the purposes of 'saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property'.

This was at the outset a missing person enquiry. These were generally investigated by uniformed officers in the first instance, with standard police enquiries being conducted. If foul play was suspected at any point then the CID would take full responsibility. The finding of SJL's, apparently abandoned car in Stevenage Road at 22:01 on 28th July 1986 was that tipping point.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

@WestLondoner, MG does not state that he saw SJL departing. AS p.6 states:

'The estate agent manager remembered Susannah coming behind his desk to pick up the keys'.

For all we know MG may have left for lunch between this occurrence and SJL leaving Sturgis for 37 SR.'
'
It is necessary to be accurate and not to introduce factually unproven statements through spurious interpretation.

 

[Konstantin]

Thanks for the reply @WiseOwl.

I noticed some errors in AS's book in terms of police systems and procedure. They aren't significant but demonstrate that AS is not infallible when understanding how the Metropolitan Police operated at the time.

My understanding is also that DV spins what his witnesses say, don't say, how they say it, to support his narrative, rather than just presenting the statements without any embellishment.



For DV, as a former Met police officer, to believe this, is disingenuous.

The duty inspector, KT, will have been the uniformed inspector with initial responsibility for ALL incidents on the Fulham police division (FF) during his shift. In respect of SJL, once the missing report was received, he will have liaised with the duty CID, due to the particular circumstances. However, he would also have assigned his uniformed officers to conduct any standard police, yet time driven missing person enquiries.

Just such an enquiry is to check the place where the missing person (SJL) is last believed to have been, i.e. 37 Shorrolds Road, in this case. It is possible that she could have come to harm at the address either through accident or crime. It is very likely that a uniformed officer would have been assigned to do just this.

Police would not need to be in possession of the keys, as any constable has power to enter and search under S17 (1(e)) PACE 1984 for the purposes of 'saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property'.

This was at the outset a missing person enquiry. These were generally investigated by uniformed officers in the first instance, with standard police enquiries being conducted. If foul play was suspected at any point then the CID would take full responsibility. The finding of SJL's, apparently abandoned car in Stevenage Road at 22:01 on 28th July 1986 was that tipping point.

Do you think this account by AS is inaccurate then? (THe first officers to be sent out would have been regular, uniformed, non CID ones?)

AS says (p10) two plainclothes detectives were sent from "the criminal investigation department at the station" to immediately enter and search 37SR, following which a constable was posted on duty outside.

According to AS, after the two detectives were sent to 37SR, Inspector Johnstone, of the CID, who was contacted at home, took charge of things and instructed his officers to "immediately" go to her home, and then also go back to 37SRand he also instructed to get uniformed officers to do a search of the streets for her car.

On p. 12 AS says that the two detectives who had been to 37SR (the ones who were sent before Johnstone was called) then received his instruction to go to SJL's home, which they did.

So the timeline for AS is:

-- CID from teh station go to 37SR
-- Johnstone called, instructs go to her flat, then back to 37SR, same time uniformed grid search for car
-- Two detectives get this message, having been to 37SR, then go to her flat
--Having just left her flat they learn over the radio the car has been found so go there

DV claims the two officers who went to her flat did not go to 37SR

So since AS says two officers did go to 37SR, it could be the case that either DV is just wrong or the two officers who went to 37SR and then posted the constable outside were different (e.g. they were uniformed non CID) from teh ones (CID) who went to her flat, and who did not then go back to 37SR, which had already been searched and an officer placed outside. However this is SPECULATION!

So for DV to be correct-- either AS, who had his information from police sources, was (a) lied to by a nefarious police source intent on covering up a newly hatched conspiracy, or (b) totally mistaken or (c) possibly mixed up the two officers who searched 37SR right away with the two who went to her flat. I doubt the first two options is the case and it would make zero sense for them not to attend 37SR since that is where she said she was going, and a witness claimed to have seen a female outside (and a male, who he initially claimed was bundling her into a vehicle), sparking concerns.

I don't know why DV would try to claim that the police failed to search 37SR as it makes literally no sense whatsoever to me.

 

[WestLondoner]

DV does not claim that, AFAICT. He met Mick Jones (MJ) and discussed the case with him. MJ was one of two detectives assigned on 28/7/86, was directed to SJL's flat, and did not go into 37SR. He is under the impressions that other officers probably did, but he's not sure who; and also that MG had already been inside. It is clear that police entered 37SR the next day to dust it for fingerprints etc.

This leaves DV with the idea that the police may possibly not have been inside 37SR that day. If so, it can only be because someone else, e.g. MG, assured them he already had looked. The train of inference this leads him to is not that the police never went inside at all, but that whoever went in and whenever, they used the keys to do so. This is, let's face it, the only way MG was going to gain entry, if he really did go in. He's a yuppie estate agent; he's not going to start shoulder-barging clients' front doors down.

As we have gone over a few times, it should not have been possible for MG to get in with the keys if SJL really went to a viewing with the only set. So if MG did not go inside that day but plod did, then either

• plod bashed the door down, left no traces and nobody remembers who that was; or
• they got in using the keys SJL had not after all taken with her, which SR pretty much conceded to DV when he met him was what happened.

There aren't any other possibilities here, I don't think.

The claims that SJL took the keys seem to rest on AS' account of her leaning past MG to do so and on the Crimewatch reconstruction showing this. The problem here is that MG has said elsewhere that he left the office before SJL did (and indeed 12.45 is pretty late to be leaving for lunch with the big honch), which is why he had to look at her diary to figure out where she was supposed to be. It beggars belief, if he really was still at his desk, that SJL would take a set of keys and swan off without saying what property she was showing whom; and also that any estate agent would go off to show a property to someone totally unknown who might be a penniless timewaster. Wherever she was going, whether to pick up her stuff from the PoW or some other personal errand, I don't see how she was attending what she thought was an actual pukka viewing.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Do you think this account by AS is inaccurate then? (THe first officers to be sent out would have been regular, uniformed, non CID ones?)

AS says (p10) two plainclothes detectives were sent from "the criminal investigation department at the station" to immediately enter and search 37SR, following which a constable was posted on duty outside.

According to AS, after the two detectives were sent to 37SR, Inspector Johnstone, of the CID, who was contacted at home, took charge of things and instructed his officers to "immediately" go to her home, and then also go back to 37SRand he also instructed to get uniformed officers to do a search of the streets for her car.

On p. 12 AS says that the two detectives who had been to 37SR (the ones who were sent before Johnstone was called) then received his instruction to go to SJL's home, which they did.

So the timeline for AS is:

-- CID from teh station go to 37SR
-- Johnstone called, instructs go to her flat, then back to 37SR, same time uniformed grid search for car
-- Two detectives get this message, having been to 37SR, then go to her flat
--Having just left her flat they learn over the radio the car has been found so go there

DV claims the two officers who went to her flat did not go to 37SR

So since AS says two officers did go to 37SR, it could be the case that either DV is just wrong or the two officers who went to 37SR and then posted the constable outside were different (e.g. they were uniformed non CID) from teh ones (CID) who went to her flat, and who did not then go back to 37SR, which had already been searched and an officer placed outside. However this is SPECULATION!

So for DV to be correct-- either AS, who had his information from police sources, was (a) lied to by a nefarious police source intent on covering up a newly hatched conspiracy, or (b) totally mistaken or (c) possibly mixed up the two officers who searched 37SR right away with the two who went to her flat. I doubt the first two options is the case and it would make zero sense for them not to attend 37SR since that is where she said she was going, and a witness claimed to have seen a female outside (and a male, who he initially claimed was bundling her into a vehicle), sparking concerns.

I don't know why DV would try to claim that the police failed to search 37SR as it makes literally no sense whatsoever to me.

I think context is essential to understanding.

1. Reports of missing persons are initially dealt with (same in 1986) by unformed divisional officers. The initial report may be in person at the police station (they were open in 1986), the 999 system or by stopping a local officer. Also 101 now.

2. The Met will have recorded the details on a Missing Persons Report - Form 584.

3. The Duty Inspector for the division will have been notified and will allocate any time critical tasks to uniformed officers. The Duty Inspector was also obliged to report the matter to CID. All these actions had to be recorded on the 584.

4. A primary task in any missing persons investigation is to search the place where they were last known to have been. In this case I feel certain that it would be extended to 37 SR, based on the diary entry. There is no point in expanding outwards until such key locations have been checked. A number of experienced officers were involved at this stage, i.e. Duty Inspector, CID and likely a uniform sergeant. I fail to see how they would all ignore 37 SR...to cover themselves if nothing more.

5. The mispers home address will also be searched, as a matter of course, and elimination, even if its not the place they were last seen. It may also yield clues about their intentions, location, provide lines of enquiry etc.

6. In terms of the initial search of 37 SR, it could have been conducted by uniform or CID. All officers have the same power of entry and search. In 1986 entry could be achieved without causing any damage by slipping the lock. Also front doors would often open with minimal force and no damaqe caused.

7. That a uniformed officer was posted outside 37 SR could mean:

a) That 37 SR was insecure after a forced entry and an 'approved' door/window company was awaited to secure the property.

b) That an initial search to locate SJL had been undertaken, which proved negative. However, in the circumstances
the Officer/Supervisor/Duty Officer/CID felt it may be a potential source of evidence and therefore it was necessary to preserve the continuity** of any subsequent evidence. Therefore an officer was tasked to remain and secure the scene.

** Continuity - maintaining control over all evidence so that it stands up to scrutiny in respect of compromise, contamination or tampering in any subsequent criminal proceedings.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

DBM - Duplicate

 

[Cherwell]

Listen to James Calvert at 2 minutes 55 seconds in!

"She asked me to get her the keys to Shorrolds Road"

So according to him she didn't go around anyone's desk to pick up the keys. He fetched them for her.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

DV does not claim that, AFAICT. He met Mick Jones (MJ) and discussed the case with him. MJ was one of two detectives assigned on 28/7/86, was directed to SJL's flat, and did not go into 37SR. He is under the impressions that other officers probably did, but he's not sure who; and also that MG had already been inside. It is clear that police entered 37SR the next day to dust it for fingerprints etc.

This leaves DV with the idea that the police may possibly not have been inside 37SR that day. If so, it can only be because someone else, e.g. MG, assured them he already had looked. The train of inference this leads him to is not that the police never went inside at all, but that whoever went in and whenever, they used the keys to do so. This is, let's face it, the only way MG was going to gain entry, if he really did go in. He's a yuppie estate agent; he's not going to start shoulder-barging clients' front doors down.

As we have gone over a few times, it should not have been possible for MG to get in with the keys if SJL really went to a viewing with the only set. So if MG did not go inside that day but plod did, then either

• plod bashed the door down, left no traces and nobody remembers who that was; or
• they got in using the keys SJL had not after all taken with her, which SR pretty much conceded to DV when he met him was what happened.

There aren't any other possibilities here, I don't think.

The claims that SJL took the keys seem to rest on AS' account of her leaning past MG to do so and on the Crimewatch reconstruction showing this. The problem here is that MG has said elsewhere that he left the office before SJL did (and indeed 12.45 is pretty late to be leaving for lunch with the big honch), which is why he had to look at her diary to figure out where she was supposed to be. It beggars belief, if he really was still at his desk, that SJL would take a set of keys and swan off without saying what property she was showing whom; and also that any estate agent would go off to show a property to someone totally unknown who might be a penniless timewaster. Wherever she was going, whether to pick up her stuff from the PoW or some other personal errand, I don't see how she was attending what she thought was an actual pukka viewing.

Listen to James Calvert at 2 minutes 55 seconds in!

No access outside UK

that SJL would take a set of keys and swan off without saying what property she was showing whom; and also that any estate agent would go off to show a property to someone totally unknown who might be a penniless timewaster. Wherever she was going, whether to pick up her stuff from the PoW or some other personal errand, I don't see how she was attending what she thought was an actual pukka viewing.

Estate agents like other lone workers at the time, were often required to meet customers/clients whom they did not know. Improving safety for lone workers was an initial driving principle of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

"She asked me to get her the keys to Shorrolds Road"

So according to him she didn't go around anyone's desk to pick up the keys. He fetched them for her.

No, SJL may have gone behind MG's desk, maybe she didn't, but if she did, which keys did she take, if indeed she took keys?

Did MG assume SJL took keys because 'someone' went behind his desk - SJL or JC? Has he got eyes in the back of his head? Was he confused with what SJL did on other occasions? Was he concerned that he wasn't in the office at the time but had no alibi? Lots of questions, which one would expect have been ironed by the police to understand exactly who saw, said and did what.

JC's testimony is compelling. He has reason to remember, it involved an action on his part.

 

[Cherwell]

Estate agents like other lone workers at the time, were often required to meet customers/clients whom they did not know. Improving safety for lone workers was an initial driving principle of Suzy Lamplugh Trust.

True, but as I understand it they would normally fill in an index card giving more details about the client.
That the only mention of "Mr Kipper" was the note in her diary was apparently not the usual routine. There should have been a record of his address and contact details.