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

[WiseOwl]

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.

Hi @WestLondoner, do you know where MG said he left the office before Suzy did?

In both the police reconstruction (August '86) and the crimewatch one (October '86), MG can be clearly seen at his desk at the back of the office before Suzy leaves. Why would he place himself there if it wasn't true? Surely he would be honest enough to say he wasn't in the office when she left so why take part?

 

[Cluesleuth]

"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.

In the CH5 programme JC the office junior said SJl had asked him to get her the keys to 37SR as she was going to do a quick showing and then go to lunch, however he doesnt say when asked that he did get the keys and hand them to her.
This is important as in AS book 28-29 KR the temp secretary went to her bank at 12.30 returning to the office 5 minutes later, SJL is sat half on her desk on the phone as if she was about to leave. KR says SJL then took the keys to 37SR from the keyboard behind MG desk, and the prop details from the drawer.

Its a busy office SJL was on the phone and the only other person in the office was JC so if any of the 3 other phones rang or someone walked in off the street he would be the one who would have to deal with them.
Seeing this SJL would have proceeded to take the key and the details herself as KR had observed.

MG was at lunch
SF was on a viewing
I'm guessing NH was out too as I have not seen any record of him saying he saw SJL leaving
KR just walking in the door after returning from the bank.

What the conversation with JC does confirm is she intended to go to 37SR for a showing and then go to lunch

JMO

 

[Konstantin]

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.

Thanks, this really helps contextualise what AS reported. It is a shame he didn't go into more detail (by asking someone who knew how stuff worked) to explain why the things he reported happened.

E.g. even him just saying that the procedures carried out were standard operating procedures would have helped to put his reporting of the first hours of the operation into context and perspective.

DV argues that if the door was forced it would have been visible in press photos but I am skeptical of this. I wish that AS had explained why they chose to put a constable outside 37SR, because it would likely have helped clear up the keys issue.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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.

Yes there should, but there wasn't. Either error, time pressure or deliberately excluded.

My conclusion is that SJL knew who she was meeting, maybe only a brief acquaintance, and it was an individual whose details she purposefully didn't create in the card index.

SJL was still with AL at the time. She kept her personal life compartmentalised and secret.

I've previously explained my reasons why 37SR and at lunchtime. Perceived safety (recorded location), daytime, people around and an excuse to break away (needed back at the office). She may have also thought she was helping 'Kipper' find a property but had no sense that her life would be in danger. Why would she? Yet we know JC is a master manipulator.

This thread seems to go round in circles. I'm only interested in what witnesses say and what the police say, because they are the most reliable sources.

The witness evidence needs to be treated with caution, but where there is corroboration by independent witnesses then I consider it to be credible.

The investigators who have made quotes to camera are always very precise in what they say and only say what they know or believe without embellishment. They clearly delineate between the evidence and their theories

If people buy into the police are incompetent, lazy, corrupt ad infinitum mantra, then they will never be happy and are best looking inwardly for the solution.....they bring nothing to the party.

I would urge anyone to watch the following two documentaries a few times. This is information directly from the witnesses and the investigators, without the Chinese whispers, manipulation and false reporting of others.

No access outside UK

AS's book is excellent for background information and he had access to the investigators. He is a renowned broadsheet journalist. He does make some simple errors in police terminology and procedures, which, whilst not impacting on his telling of the investigation always makes me think he could present something relevant incorrectly.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

DV argues that if the door was forced it would have been visible in press photos but I am skeptical of this. I wish that AS had explained why they chose to put a constable outside 37SR, because it would likely have helped clear up the keys issue.

Doors are only as strong as their weakest point, which is generally the frame

Observing the Crimewatch reconstruction from October 1986, 37 SR looks as though there was only a rim lock (Yale type key) and no mortice lock. See at 20 mins 41 seconds

Unless a rim lock was flush into a solid frame then it was easy to pop it open, either by slipping it with an everyday material or by leaning against the lock and maybe shoulder barging it or kicking with the sole of the boot over the site of the lock. It would often open with little or no damage.

What hasn't been mentioned either is that officers could have entered from the rear of 37 SR. If there is no rear access, by climbing over from a neighbouring property. This is very common for police officers to do, firstly to check through the windows for anything unusual and secondly accessing from the rear is often easier and causes less damage.

 

[Cherwell]

If people buy into the police are incompetent, lazy, corrupt ad infinitum mantra, then they will never be happy and are best looking inwardly for the solution.....they bring nothing to the party.

I don't, particularly. I am always aware that the forensics available to detectives today are a world apart from what there was in 1986. So as an observer I don't see anything really shameful in failing to solve this case.

 

[Circulo]

So many of these small details we wish were drilled into at the time and at subsequent interviews to gain a clearer picture. Some points from my own reading of all (presented) evidence, in no particular order:

1. The police are in possession of SLP's personal diary. Am quite sure that there is some serious evidence here.
2. It's a bit vague, but fairly sure that JC had been attending his work placement at the props hire place (in Acton) for the six months preceding his actual release from Wormwood Scrubs halfway hostel (basically Acton) on July 25th 1986. So JC was 'at large' in the area from early in 1986.
3. JC's boss at the hire place is quite emphatic that JC 'hated yuppies' (!) and 'wanted to smear dirt [] in their face'.
4. In photos of the POW past and present there is a side entrance access recessed into the building with a few steps leading up to the entrance door. There does not appear to be a sitex door or screen for this access point, then or now. There has been some astonishment that SLP's belongings were left on the front steps of the pub (prominent position on the corner fronting the main Upper Richmond Road) without being disturbed or scattered overnight. Referring to small points drilled into, as above - it would seem more likely and plausible that these effects were tucked into the side entrance door recess; less obvious, more discreet and more likely to be found by pub owner/landlord(?) as intended.
5. SLP's workplace and the POW building both occupied prominent, corner positions; ideal for stalking and covert surveillance.
6. Apart from JC's former GF : 'yes, sounds exactly like JC; champagne, flowers' - and the shocking: 'abducted, on a weekday lunchtime!' - who would turn up with champagne on Monday midday after a boring weekend?
7. Think it could be likely that somebody stole and read her diary; noticed comely references to 'Kip' or 'Kipper' (IE. her friend, Herring of Shorrolds Road) and possibly impersonated 'Kip' on the phone to make an appointment and entrap her. (Do we know if JC was known to 'do voices'? But hey, he's a psychopath, so, probably.)
8. The detective in the JC documentary was most emphatic that he could place JC in Fulham, contrary to JC's denials.

I have no dog in this hunt. The above are details that have snagged in my brain (FWIW). I was a young estate agent negotiator in 1988 (not London but SE UK) and I was asked at every visit to every property I was surveying to put on the market: 'What about Suzy Lamplugh? Aren't you worried going into people's house that you don't know?' No. It was a fierce property market in 1988. Every phone call or expression of interest was a major 'lead': Is your property on the market; what is your selling position, who is selling it? can we help? reduce commission?; what about your mortgage? need our advice? Conveyancing - who is acting for you? It was simply unheard of to attend a viewing without knowing details of the prospective buyer's position, to not only extract as much revenue as possible, but to guard against nosey neighbours wanting a look around to see what they've done with the place and compare it to their own property. Perhaps 'Kip' was pushy..

My own musings to jot down here is all...

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Think it could be likely that somebody stole and read her diary; noticed comely references to 'Kip' or 'Kipper' (IE. her friend,

AFAIK it's never been revealed what type of diary it is. As is was in her handbag then the likelihood is that it was a bog standard diary with personal appointments, birthdays, anniversaries and family/friends/personal contact numbers.

A personal journal, if indeed SJL kept one, was more likely to have been kept securely in SJL's flat.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

SLP's workplace and the POW building both occupied prominent, corner positions; ideal for stalking and covert surveillance.

This would make covert observations more troublesome.

 

[Konstantin]

Observing the Crimewatch reconstruction from October 1986, 37 SR looks as though there was only a rim lock (Yale type key) and no mortice lock. See at 20 mins 41 seconds

Yep, and DV also points this out (in a way that, especially given your further comments about how easy these locks are to slip, kind of undermines his argument).

Here are some extracts from DV's book regarding his thoughts on the police and searching 37SR and the door which was according to him not broken into. They do illustrate a bit why I think he at times appears to be disingenuous as we know he has read AS and we know he knows that the police did attend 37SR.

He presents this as a chat between him and his researcher, he often uses this sort of exposition to put points across to the reader:

"Does it really matter whether the police searched 37SR that night or not," Caroline asked, sounding confused.

"So an estate agent has gone missing and her desk diary states she has an appointment to show a Fulham house to a viewer. Yet the police totally ignore this and decide to break into Suzy's own flat in Putney. They don't bother to even look inside the Fulham house she was supposed to be showing a client around? That just seems strange to me. Why didn't the CID search 37 SR.... I want to understand their thought processes."

[This is just untrue, we know they did "bother" to look inside the house and didn't "totally ignore this" and if this is standard police procedure, then DV would know that...]

DV goes on to say that "by the following morning the police were forensicating 37SR as they would a crime scene" and "so there was a crime scene at SR at some point on Tuesday morning".

"How did they get into that address on Tuesday morning? I asked, picking up one of the photos and looking closely at the open door... How did the police get the front door open--did they break in?...So who broke into the house then?...Do we know how many locks there were on the front door?" I asked, wondering how much noise and damage it had taken to get in.

[...]

"They key for 37SR is described as a single Yale lock on a large, yellow plastic key fob"

[...]
"That front door isn;t damaged, six days after the police have forensicated the inside of the address. They didn't break in through the door"

"What abotu the back?"

"That involves scaling high walls, clambering over fences and cutting through undergrowth. We never do it"

 

[Whitehall 1212]

DV goes on to say that "by the following morning the police were forensicating 37SR as they would a crime scene" and "so there was a crime scene at SR at some point on Tuesday morning".

Thanks for the post @Konstantin

"That front door isn;t damaged, six days after the police have forensicated the inside of the address. They didn't break in through the door"

"What about the back?"

"That involves scaling high walls, clambering over fences and cutting through undergrowth. We never do it"

What is 'forensicated' when it's at home? Forensically examined!

DV's comments about forcing non-contentious** entry through front doors always causing visible damage and not accessing properties from the rear lead me to wonder if he was ostensibly an office waller. He can't have had much operational police experience at the sharp end if this is what he thinks. This man has absolutely zero credibility.

** Of course if executing a warrant for a serious criminal then it's bish, bash, bosh to gain an advantage through shock and awe and reduce the likelihood of challenge.

 

[Konstantin]

What is 'forensicated' when it's at home? Forensically examined!

He uses it a couple or more times in this context, I assumed it was a technical term of art.

Also if it was six days later, and the police had to force the lock to get in (the single Yale lock) then one would assume they would just replace it if need be to ensure the property--which was empty and belonged to someone living overseas--would not be broken into?

Anyway, I am not particularly convinced by his "she didn't take the keys" hypothesis.

The second documentary which was posted above and which has commentary from police who worked on the case has one detective say that they looked into and checked thoroughly her previous lunchtime appointments. From what he said it seems they actually went through her office diary and contacted clients she had shown around homes and found out that they were all bona fide appointments and that she was conscientious about turning up on time. So if it WAS fake the Kipper appointment was an anomaly.

Regarding her missing items, the same documentary includes a clip from AL, who was SJL's then boyfriend (albeit AS notes she had apparently told friends that she planned to dump him, for what that's worth-he was eliminated of course from the enquiry and there is zero suspicion over him). He says that after they ate at the restaurant near her home (Mossops--he does not name it) they went for a drink at the pub next door. There is no reason for him to lie about this and the interview was done much closer to the time of her disappearance than his rather odd interview with DV whom he told that he never went to the pub. I do wonder if DV somehow put him off and he just started to deny stuff because he didn't know what DV's motives in interviewing him were. To be honest, I would do the same. I am not totally convinced that the presentation of the interview reflects what happened but that is my own opinion based on nothing more than my gut feeling, which could obviously be completely wrong!

 

[Terryb808]

He uses it a couple or more times in this context, I assumed it was a technical term of art.

Also if it was six days later, and the police had to force the lock to get in (the single Yale lock) then one would assume they would just replace it if need be to ensure the property--which was empty and belonged to someone living overseas--would not be broken into?

Anyway, I am not particularly convinced by his "she didn't take the keys" hypothesis.

The second documentary which was posted above and which has commentary from police who worked on the case has one detective say that they looked into and checked thoroughly her previous lunchtime appointments. From what he said it seems they actually went through her office diary and contacted clients she had shown around homes and found out that they were all bona fide appointments and that she was conscientious about turning up on time. So if it WAS fake the Kipper appointment was an anomaly.

Regarding her missing items, the same documentary includes a clip from AL, who was SJL's then boyfriend (albeit AS notes she had apparently told friends that she planned to dump him, for what that's worth-he was eliminated of course from the enquiry and there is zero suspicion over him). He says that after they ate at the restaurant near her home (Mossops--he does not name it) they went for a drink at the pub next door. There is no reason for him to lie about this and the interview was done much closer to the time of her disappearance than his rather odd interview with DV whom he told that he never went to the pub. I do wonder if DV somehow put him off and he just started to deny stuff because he didn't know what DV's motives in interviewing him were. To be honest, I would do the same. I am not totally convinced that the presentation of the interview reflects what happened but that is my own opinion based on nothing more than my gut feeling, which could obviously be completely wrong!

What’s not really known is the arrangements generally for that Friday evening. Also just how bulky an item the diary actually was. I can understand taking a chequebook, but not the diary.
I base this on SJL going home from work and then going for the meal with AL, to the PoW afterwards for a drink and then home?
Now if you believe the police version of events JC was a PoW regular and he knew SJL. This being the case SJL would have avoided the PoW as she’d not want to bump into JC while with AL.
What doesn’t make sence is someone dipping into SJL’s bag, stealing her items, only to leave them for CV to find.

 

[Konstantin]

What’s not really known is the arrangements generally for that Friday evening. Also just how bulky an item the diary actually was. I can understand taking a chequebook, but not the diary.
I base this on SJL going home from work and then going for the meal with AL, to the PoW afterwards for a drink and then home?
Now if you believe the police version of events JC was a PoW regular and he knew SJL. This being the case SJL would have avoided the PoW as she’d not want to bump into JC while with AL.
What doesn’t make sence is someone dipping into SJL’s bag, stealing her items, only to leave them for CV to find.

Yes exactly!
In the documentary, AL says he and SJL met up at her flat then went to the restaurant. That on the face of it suggests he went round to her place i.e. he went up to her flat, then they went down together to eat out and have a drink. If that is the case why would she even take a bag with her diary and chequebook in just to go out locally, did she pay for the meal with a cheque (did people do that back then?) I would expect AL to have paid... it was the 80s...

If they just met up at her flat as she was on her way back and they didn't first go inside the flat, then if she had taken her bag to work and didn't drop it off at home-- that would make more sense.

It's very weird. I can see someone stealing the stuff to look through to find out about her but why not just dump it in a bin?

 

[Cluesleuth]

What’s not really known is the arrangements generally for that Friday evening. Also just how bulky an item the diary actually was. I can understand taking a chequebook, but not the diary.
I base this on SJL going home from work and then going for the meal with AL, to the PoW afterwards for a drink and then home?
Now if you believe the police version of events JC was a PoW regular and he knew SJL. This being the case SJL would have avoided the PoW as she’d not want to bump into JC while with AL.
What doesn’t make sence is someone dipping into SJL’s bag, stealing her items, only to leave them for CV to find.

AS book Pg 25 says it was a 'Pocket Diary'. Pocket diaries were designed to fit into a pocket.

My thoughts were that the cheque book was inside the pages of the pocket diary.
If it was, then the page where it was inserted may have held a clue to a specific entry where a payment had or was due to be paid.
Inspection of the cheque stubbs would show who the last cheques were made out to.

It would have have been interesting to know why AL thought the items to have been stolen, and if she had taken a handbag or coat to the restaurant.

She could have quite easily just lost these items if they were in pocket of a jacket or coat, particularly if she had carried the jacket or coat.

Some females take a handbag everywhere, but we know this isnt the case with SJL when she left the office she just took her purse.
Did she just take the pocket diary and cheque book on the fri night ?
Was it in her jacket or coat pocket because she had used it earlier in the day or before she met Al at the restaurant?

I can see an abductor or a stalker would be interested in stealing a pocket diary, and a thief the diary and the cheque book.
If this was the case it seems neither were interested in holding onto them.

JMO

 

[Cluesleuth]

I just wanted to ask if anyone has definate confirmation that SJL worked on the Sat?

 

[Terryb808]

I just wanted to ask if anyone has definate confirmation that SJL worked on the Sat?

Can’t remember where I read it, but it said she worked on Saturday, also James worked most Saturdays apparently. However, after all this time I’m guessing he’d not be able to recall if he did that weekend.

 

[Konstantin]

I just wanted to ask if anyone has definate confirmation that SJL worked on the Sat?

Yes it is well documented, it is in AS. She definitely worked the Saturday.

 

[Cherwell]

In the documentary, AL says he and SJL met up at her flat then went to the restaurant. That on the face of it suggests he went round to her place i.e. he went up to her flat, then they went down together to eat out and have a drink. If that is the case why would she even take a bag with her diary and chequebook in just to go out locally, did she pay for the meal with a cheque (did people do that back then?) I would expect AL to have paid... it was the 80s...

I would have taken my bag as it would have other things in it that I might need. Make-up, comb, cigarettes (I don't know if she was a smoker). My cheque book was always in my bag. There were no debit cards, so you would pay in cash, by cheque, or by credit card if you had one.

Just possibly she had a folder or wallet-type thing in which she kept both cheque book and diary.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Yes it is well documented, it is in AS. She definitely worked the Saturday.

Could you possibly give me the page number?