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

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

It's also very rare that people just cut off all contact with their past lives. It's just not remotely likely in SJL's case. She was a popular, successful young woman with tons of friends, a great life, and plans for her future. She was beloved by her family and cared deeply about them. For her to just disappear without a trace to "start a new life" is just not worth considering.

Even people who have tried to disappear for good reasons-- the Canoe Man story is a good case in point--were not able to cut themselves off completely from their old lives. Canoe Man even lived with his wife after he faked his own death, and eventually tried to pretend he had amnesia because he wanted to reconnect with his family. And he was a sociopathic idiot. SJL was far from being that.

Unfortunately, women are murdered and raped. Usually by people they know but in some cases by strangers who are psychopathic monsters. Sometimes the bodies are not found.

It's actually hard to believe that someone is capable of doing these things because we would not even have any urges to do them. Reading about JC for example (who may be responsible for SJL's murder) it is hard to fathom how someone could abduct, rape and murder (yes we don't know he raped SB but he was a convicted rapist, so we can assume he must have) a young newly wedded woman (SB) then a week or so later have his mum stay in the flat where he had held SB captive. He managed to go out with women, and not murder them. (Yet he did stalk and threaten them--he was fond of getting others to help him do this, e.g. he hired a private investigator to find out info on his solicitor girlfriend). It's hard to fathom how one minute SB was buying a new dress in a department store, next minute she's abducted to be murdered--because we would not be capable of this behaviour ourselves.

I agree that less likely theories are, well, less likely.

I think the rape aspect is possibly overplayed. Statistically, most women who are murdered are murdered by a partner or ex-partner who has already displayed violence. Most women are murdered by that partner or ex-partner at the time they attempt to end the relationship or show signs of ending. If that partner has already been violent, the flashpoint is the time of ending and the danger zone stays highest for a good six months after the separation, worse if shared childcare is involved. When it's a partner / ex-partner the motivation is not the sex crime per se, it's just part of the violent life ending abuse sometimes.

People like JC, the Camden Ripper, Wayne Couzens, Keith Nilsen, etc - they are far gone predatory psychopaths with a pre-meditated plan to snatch, rape, then kill a woman. That stuff is thankfully rare! They don't usually operate in broad daylight, they go out 'hunting' at night. Statistically, that stuff is tiny compared to how women are usually killed - let's not forget more than two women per week are murdered here in the UK.

Femicide Census reveals half of UK women killed by men die at hands of partner or ex | End Violence Against Women

The Femicide Census report published today (20.02.20) on UK femicides in 2018 finds men who have already killed women are killing again – three men had already killed women before – and over half of perpetrators (52%) had a history of violence to women. The report, published by Women’s Aid and...

www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

If go simply by those statistics, the case would be that SJL was murdered by someone who she knew, most likely someone she had been intimate with, or someone she just knew somehow or was related to, somewhere inside a building or shed, most likely her own home or nearby.

Less than 6% of all murdered women are killed by a stranger. Also in that 'stranger' category are the random killings of people who had 'no reason' to murder them specifically - ie are high on drugs, in active psychosis, or killed them unintentionally in the midst of another violent act (such as hitting the wrong target in a shooting).

 

[WiseOwl]

Totally agree on this - there's something 'there'. We're mostly all speculating the cheque book and diary were taken from her bag by someone for nefarious reasons, before that people seemed to think she'd left them or dropped them in a phone box or in the pub. The fact is we have no idea, unless I'm mistaken. So they could have been swiped or dropped or thrown in any number of ways for all sorts of reasons, maybe even taken from her car glove compartment - popping car doors used to be easy in those days didn't it?

The question is, why were they left on the PoW doorstep? Another coincidence maybe?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I agree that less likely theories are, well, less likely.

I think the rape aspect is possibly overplayed. Statistically, most women who are murdered are murdered by a partner or ex-partner who has already displayed violence. Most women are murdered by that partner or ex-partner at the time they attempt to end the relationship or show signs of ending. If that partner has already been violent, the flashpoint is the time of ending and the danger zone stays highest for a good six months after the separation, worse if shared childcare is involved. When it's a partner / ex-partner the motivation is not the sex crime per se, it's just part of the violent life ending abuse sometimes.

People like JC, the Camden Ripper, Wayne Couzens, Keith Nilsen, etc - they are far gone predatory psychopaths with a pre-meditated plan to snatch, rape, then kill a woman. That stuff is thankfully rare! They don't usually operate in broad daylight, they go out 'hunting' at night. Statistically, that stuff is tiny compared to how women are usually killed - let's not forget more than two women per week are murdered here in the UK.

Femicide Census reveals half of UK women killed by men die at hands of partner or ex | End Violence Against Women

The Femicide Census report published today (20.02.20) on UK femicides in 2018 finds men who have already killed women are killing again – three men had already killed women before – and over half of perpetrators (52%) had a history of violence to women. The report, published by Women’s Aid and...

www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk

The likely motivation being rape/control is not being overplayed in this scenario, i.e. one of abduction by a predatory offender, in this case the only suspect being JC.

P.S. Who is Keith Nillsen when he's at home? Do you mean either Denis Nilsen or Donald Neilsen?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Well a 'finder' who happened to know the loser couldn't really take them to the police station, where his details would be recorded.

Where better to leave them, where they would be found, than in the immediate area where SJL would be 'encouraged' to believe they may have gone missing on the Friday evening and where she would likely enquire after them.

In this case though the PoW were pro-active in contacting her bank, enabling them to inform her.

 

[asyousay]

The question is, why were they left on the PoW doorstep? Another coincidence maybe?

Well it’s strange isn’t it as her boyfriend (ex) claims they never went there Friday. I know a few posters think she went there Sunday night but there is zero evidence supporting that so then it becomes how did they end up there?


Maybe she was being stalked and the perpetrator left them there for some unknown reason. Is CV lying about where he found them?


The case is super frustrating as so little is known.

Moooo

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Well it’s strange isn’t it as her boyfriend (ex) claims they never went there Friday.

I take it you haven't watched the documentary, where AL says quite the opposite?

 

[Cherwell]

Well, true, but people do that so if their things go astray, someone can return them

Perhaps so, but Suzy didn't write her address in her diary or there would have been no need to ring the bank to trace the owner.

 

[Cherwell]

We're mostly all speculating the cheque book and diary were taken from her bag by someone for nefarious reasons, before that people seemed to think she'd left them or dropped them in a phone box or in the pub. The fact is we have no idea, unless I'm mistaken. So they could have been swiped or dropped or thrown in any number of ways for all sorts of reasons, maybe even taken from her car glove compartment - popping car doors used to be easy in those days didn't it?

I think AL is the most likely suspect. Not difficult to imagine that he might have "borrowed" the items to spy on her, then left them on the pub steps as an anonymous way of returning them which would muddy the water a bit. Not the crime of the century, but something that a lover might do if they suspected there was competition.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

The question is, why were they left on the PoW doorstep? Another coincidence maybe?

That bit is very odd. Maybe the doorstep of the side door as someone here has pointed out. Maybe they were there all the time. Bit more than coincidence in the circs it seems.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I think AL is the most likely suspect. Not difficult to imagine that he might have "borrowed" the items to spy on her, then left them on the pub steps as an anonymous way of returning them which would muddy the water a bit. Not the crime of the century, but something that a lover might do if they suspected there was competition.

I totally agree. Am not sure we're allowed to say that here though... I'd be very interested to know how he was so quickly ruled out.

 

[Cherwell]

As no ransom demand was made or there was anything to indicate the involvement of organised crime, then it is a fair assumption that such an abduction would result in murder and most likely had a sexual motive.

There are other possibilities, such as anger and desire for revenge and punishment. It could have been an entirely personal motive driven by some action of hers.

 

[Cherwell]

I totally agree. Am not sure we're allowed to say that here though... I'd be very interested to know how he was so quickly ruled out.

You mean ruled out of taking the items? That's all I meant. I doubt it could be proved one way or the other.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

There are other possibilities, such as anger and desire for revenge and punishment. It could have been an entirely personal motive driven by some action of hers.

The motivation is power and control over the victim. Rape is a crime of violence, power and control......it is not sexual.

 

[Konstantin]

That bit is very odd. Maybe the doorstep of the side door as someone here has pointed out. Maybe they were there all the time. Bit more than coincidence in the circs it seems.

According to the temporary landlord they were near one of teh benches that was just outside the pub, the benches were the sort of picnic table wooden things you get in pubs and parks for people to eat and drink outdoors on. They weren't left on teh doorstep exactly.

I guess loads of people leave stuff in pubs so landlords and staff are used to checking for lost property and dealing with it.

 

[Cherwell]

The motivation is power and control over the victim. Rape is a crime of violence, power and control......it is not sexual.

I never mentioned rape. There is - obviously - no evidence that she was raped.

 

[asyousay]

I take it you haven't watched the documentary, where AL says quite the opposite?

Have you got a link where he states they went to to POW?

He never names where they went to as far as I’m aware and he has later denied they went to Pow on that Friday as far as I’m aware.

Moo

 

[Konstantin]

I think AL is the most likely suspect. Not difficult to imagine that he might have "borrowed" the items to spy on her, then left them on the pub steps as an anonymous way of returning them which would muddy the water a bit. Not the crime of the century, but something that a lover might do if they suspected there was competition.

It possible yes, we don't know much about his character or their relationship. He was, like SJL, rather young at the time so SJL might have been the first person he felt seriously about, even if she did not about him. Taking the items might have been an impetuous thing a jealous person would do, akin to looking through someone's phone nowadays. It's very wrong, but jealousy is a terrible emotion. There is no evidence he did this though, it's speculation obvs.

JC liked to stalk or follow his victims/ex girlfriends though, albeit not all the time (there is no evidence he stalked SB prior to abducting her though he possibly followed her the night he abducted her). He hired an investigator to get info on the solicitor who he felt had gone cool on him. If he did know SJL or was seeing her -- and there is no evidence to suggest he did at least not in the public domain-- then it would not be out of character for him to either lift stuff himself or get someone else to. But that is pure speculation,

 

[WestLondoner]

It's also very rare that people just cut off all contact with their past lives. It's just not remotely likely in SJL's case. She was a popular, successful young woman with tons of friends, a great life, and plans for her future. She was beloved by her family and cared deeply about them. For her to just disappear without a trace to "start a new life" is just not worth considering.

Even people who have tried to disappear for good reasons-- the Canoe Man story is a good case in point--were not able to cut themselves off completely from their old lives. Canoe Man even lived with his wife after he faked his own death, and eventually tried to pretend he had amnesia because he wanted to reconnect with his family. And he was a sociopathic idiot. SJL was far from being that.

Unfortunately, women are murdered and raped. Usually by people they know but in some cases by strangers who are psychopathic monsters. Sometimes the bodies are not found.

It's actually hard to believe that someone is capable of doing these things because we would not even have any urges to do them. Reading about JC for example (who may be responsible for SJL's murder) it is hard to fathom how someone could abduct, rape and murder (yes we don't know he raped SB but he was a convicted rapist, so we can assume he must have) a young newly wedded woman (SB) then a week or so later have his mum stay in the flat where he had held SB captive. He managed to go out with women, and not murder them. (Yet he did stalk and threaten them--he was fond of getting others to help him do this, e.g. he hired a private investigator to find out info on his solicitor girlfriend). It's hard to fathom how one minute SB was buying a new dress in a department store, next minute she's abducted to be murdered--because we would not be capable of this behaviour ourselves.

Agree with all this but it is also an argument that DV could be right about the PoW. It is inconceivable to people like us that SJL could die on an errand to a pub but that's because we aren't nutters. It's actually no more inconceivable than what attackers like JC do.

 

[Konstantin]

Have you got a link where he states they went to to POW?

He never names where they went to as far as I’m aware and he has later denied they went to Pow on that Friday as far as I’m aware.

Moo

It's a clip from one of the documentaries that are linked earlier in the thread. He says they went to have a drink in the pub next door (to Mossops) and that is where she lost or had her items stolen.

As noted elsewhere I am not a fan of DV's interview style and I don't really think he gives full context for his interview reporting. So AL's remarks to him in the interview he had -- before AL stormed out-- don't have much context other than what DV gives us, and he is trying to portray this as "weird". We have no idea what AL thought the interview would be about, what line of questioning DV was going to take, if he knew up ahead there would be two people interviewing him (which alters the balance of power), or what the interview was going to be for e.g. was it going to be a splash in the Sun or Mail?

AL might have thought DV was being aggressive or intrusive or hinting at accusing him so he got annoyed, shut down, said nothing happened, and just left.

Incidentally in this extract you can see how DV is setting up the theft of SJL's stuff to be a big deal with words like "oddly absent".

Here's the quote from DV's book for the benefit of those who have not read it. The context is that DV and his assistant have arranged to meet AL in a coffee shop in London to interview him. By the time this section below happens, the interview is not going well. DV is asking him a lot of questions about his movements in the last days before SJL disappeared and his interactions with her. It comes across like DV is being quite aggressive with the questioning--he is asking a lot of questions as if this is a police interview. It's not a chat. So by the time we get here, AL is described by DV as "tense". The last question prior to this is "did you ever read anything about SJL that upset you?".

I was curious about a documentary AL had previously appeared in where he;d described his last big night out with SJL, which took place on the evening of Friday 25 July 1986. He'd mentioned that they'd been out to a restaurant close to SJL's flat and then visited the pub next door for a drink. In an unusual turn of events, AL explained that he thought someone had taken a "chequebook, a diary, some cards and a couple of other things" from SJL's bag while they were in the pub together that night. AL described it as an unfortunate finale to their otherwise pleasant evening.

Watching it back, Caroline and I had both remarked on how AL appeared to enjoy the limelight in front of the camera. It was a total contrast to how he seemed today.

Aside from teh allegation of theft from SJLs bag, which was oddly absent from almost anything else we'd ever seen on the case, AL made no mention of the fact he'd been out of hte the country on holiday in teh canary islands in the run up to that night. Their Friday evening together would have meant a big reunion after a length of time apart. Yet he described it as just a regular night....

Neither the alleged theft from SJLs bag or their reunification on this romantic night out seemed run of the mill to me. I wondered, given what had happened on the beach on Sunday, whether SJL had in fact indicated in some way that she was about to end their relationship. I needed to ask him about it.

"Can I ask about the last night out you had with SJL, whic I think was the friday night before she went missing?"

Adam remained silent.

"You went to a restaurant, for a meal with SJL on that Friday," I continued. "Mossops restaurant on Upper Richmond Road round the corner from her flat"

"That's right"
"It's not there any longer but it was next to a pub, the POW. THe pub is still there"

AL nodded

"DId you go to that pub very often?"

"I've never spent any time in teh POW pub" he replied

"Are you sure?" I asked. His response was baffling. He'd said something completely different on the documentary.

"I'm sure. THere were far nicer pubs down on the river which we would go to. We never ever went in there" he responded.

I pressed him further. BUt what about SJLs chequebook being stolen....

"Never happened"

I looked across at Caroline. SHe raised her eyebrows. We knew that the police had recovered SJLs lost property from the POW...

"We never spent any time in the POW pub" AL said again curtly...

"Have YOU ever been in the POW pub, Adam?" I asked, confused.

"No, I've never been in there" AL snapped back, his expression stern. He sounded riled. This was peculiar. I needed to diffuse the situation and calm him down, but as I took a deep breath to do so, our meeting came to an abrupt halt. AL stood up, dragged his coat off the back of the chair, and exclaimed "You're never going to find her, and you're never going to find anything out"

AL then storms off. My feeling is that the rather aggressive and personal questioning right from the get go, two people he'd never met, unclear reason for interview and probing questions, just p**** him off and upset him. It's a weird dynamic, there is a power inbalance here, AL is almost put in the position of a suspect, it might have brought back unpleasant and stressful memories of his extensive questioning after SJL disappeared which cannot have been pleasant.