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

[WestLondoner]

I can only assume that she wrote it in her diary because she believed it was a genuine oppointment? If it wasn't, why then didn't she just tell MG or any other of the staff that she was going to the PoW to pick up her diary & chequebook? Why would there be a problem with that?

If she had an opportunity to tell MG or the other staff, my question is why would she not just do that - why bother to write it down at all. It's not like it might slip her mind. She'd spent much of the morning chasing down her diary and rearranging stuff. According to CV he spoke to her before they opened, at what, 12? 12.30? And one of her colleagues said she was finishing a call before heading out. Why would she write Mr Kipper at 12.45 into her diary when it's 12.40 and she's leaving for that appointment? She doesn't need to write that down - she's not going to forget inside 5 minutes.

So, if there really was an appointment, it must have been made quite a long time before, maybe first thing. It cannot have been made and written in as she was leaving, there's no point. But if it was made at 9.30 or whenever, i.e. for 4 hours' time as well you might, what's she doing afterwards making, then changing an arrangement to go to the PoW at lunchtime? She already knew she couldn't go at lunchtime.

The entry says to me that it was to be read in case anyone not then in the office wondered where she was. The only person who matters is MG and / or KP, which undermines the idea that MG saw her taking the keys. If he was in when she left, she would just say where she was going.

The timing is not only relevant to whether she really intended to go to the PoW, it's also relevant if she really did go to 37SR. If someone lured her there to abduct her, is he really going to ring her up at 10 minutes' notice and demand a viewing? What if she's busy? An abduction would require some sort of set up - can he really organise an abduction on 10 minutes' notice? Cars need to be positioned, etc - surely he'd want time to set that up. He can't bundle her into e.g. a van if he can't park the van less than two streets away.

Of course letting the abductee choose when she gets abducted and in the middle of a work day carries the risk that she's missed immediately, but if that's what did happen, he got away with it - and I have trouble with the idea that he did so without significant prep before and on the day.

 

[WiseOwl]

If she had an opportunity to tell MG or the other staff, my question is why would she not just do that - why bother to write it down at all. It's not like it might slip her mind. She'd spent much of the morning chasing down her diary and rearranging stuff. According to CV he spoke to her before they opened, at what, 12? 12.30? And one of her colleagues said she was finishing a call before heading out. Why would she write Mr Kipper at 12.45 into her diary when it's 12.40 and she's leaving for that appointment? She doesn't need to write that down - she's not going to forget inside 5 minutes.

So, if there really was an appointment, it must have been made quite a long time before, maybe first thing. It cannot have been made and written in as she was leaving, there's no point. But if it was made at 9.30 or whenever, i.e. for 4 hours' time as well you might, what's she doing afterwards making, then changing an arrangement to go to the PoW at lunchtime? She already knew she couldn't go at lunchtime.

The entry says to me that it was to be read in case anyone not then in the office wondered where she was. The only person who matters is MG and / or KP, which undermines the idea that MG saw her taking the keys. If he was in when she left, she would just say where she was going.

The timing is not only relevant to whether she really intended to go to the PoW, it's also relevant if she really did go to 37SR. If someone lured her there to abduct her, is he really going to ring her up at 10 minutes' notice and demand a viewing? What if she's busy? An abduction would require some sort of set up - can he really organise an abduction on 10 minutes' notice? Cars need to be positioned, etc - surely he'd want time to set that up. He can't bundle her into e.g. a van if he can't park the van less than two streets away.

Of course letting the abductee choose when she gets abducted and in the middle of a work day carries the risk that she's missed immediately, but if that's what did happen, he got away with it - and I have trouble with the idea that he did so without significant prep before and on the day.

Suzy worked on the Saturday morning, so we don't know if this was when the appointment was made.

If it was, it would give someone plenty of time to plan what they intended to do on the Monday.

 

[Cherwell]

You make a good point, this is one of the problems we have when not being able to work with a cold case officer - obtaining factual detail.
Filming would have taken some hours, I would have thought permission was granted to close the road and perhaps divert the traffic while filming - except to residents of course.
Where its seems some people appearing in the reconstruction appeared in person I would like to have had confirmation that this was the case for everyone. Likewise the vehicles and their positioning on the street which would have been particularly important in jogging peoples memories.

But they couldn't possibly recreate the scene with exactly the same cars that were parked on the street on 28 July. Nobody would know that anyway. Even if they did close the road, the vehicles already parked there would serve as window dressing.

 

[WestLondoner]

Suzy worked on the Saturday morning, so we don't know if this was when the appointment was made.

If it was, it would give someone plenty of time to plan what they intended to do on the Monday.

Right, but in that case, it means she already knew - when she first spoke to the pub - that she couldn't go there at lunchtime. She could only go after work. So if she knew from the outset she can't go until the evening, what was there to rearrange? Why was there more than one call?

 

[Cherwell]

Perhaps she was double-checking the opening hours.

 

[WiseOwl]

Right, but in that case, it means she already knew - when she first spoke to the pub - that she couldn't go there at lunchtime. She could only go after work. So if she knew from the outset she can't go until the evening, what was there to rearrange? Why was there more than one call?

Perhaps she simply decided that she could go to the PoW after the 12.45 viewing rather than after 6.00 as originally intended, so she phoned back to say she would be there around lunchtime - the PoW is only about a 10 minute drive from Shorrolds Road.

Maybe she felt tired after her busy weekend and decided that after the 6.00 viewing she wanted to go straight home rather than call in at the PoW.

It could be something as simple as this.

All MOO of course!

 

[Crusader21]

Are we any further on since 28 July 1986?!

 

[WestLondoner]

But they couldn't possibly recreate the scene with exactly the same cars that were parked on the street on 28 July. Nobody would know that anyway. Even if they did close the road, the vehicles already parked there would serve as window dressing.

This is clearly true. To recreate the cars, you would need a witness who could tell you exactly what cars were there at that time. If you had a witness that good, you would not need to stage a reconstruction.

 

[WestLondoner]

Are we any further on since 28 July 1986?!

Yes, we have the personal confidence of someone on the Internet that Cannan dunnit, so we don't really need a discussion at all. If you ask me, we have a bit of a nerve.

 

[Crusader21]

Are we any further on since 28 July 1986?!

Having said that, out of the 101 plus possible scenarios that have been talked about on these pages. Surely one is pretty much, on the money.

Which one tho?

 

[Cluesleuth]

Are we any further on since 28 July 1986?!

I feel I am.

 

[Crusader21]

I feel I am.

As Mike Barley famously once said - she left at lunchtime, car was located at 10.01pm and hasn't been seen since. These are the only facts.

IMO all else is up for debate, speculation, claims and counter-claims ....

 

[WestLondoner]

As Mike Barley famously once said - she left at lunchtime, car was located at 10.01pm and hasn't been seen since. These are the only facts.

Heretic!

Was he sacked for saying that?!

 

[Crusader21]

Heretic!

Was he sacked for saying that?!

Just be thankful Mike doesn't post on Webslueths, as he'd been banned for undermining LE!

 

[Cluesleuth]

As Mike Barley famously once said - she left at lunchtime, car was located at 10.01pm and hasn't been seen since. These are the only facts.

IMO all else is up for debate, speculation, claims and counter-claims ....

I agree so with that in mind

The next alledged sighting of a female we are led to believe is SJL is at a property 37 Shorrolds rd. The sighting is recorded to have been witnessed by 3 people HR the neighbour at 35, a passerby 1 ND an unemployed Jeweller, and passerby 2 ND an unemployed cellarman.

To me its important to look at these people in detail, their witness statements, and their backgrounds its only after doing this can you progress.

If things dont check out then you have a question mark over the whole sighting and a veritable House of Cards situation.

Just my opinion

 

[Crusader21]

After she left the office the next alledged sighting of a female we are led to believe is SJL

'alledged sighting' and 'a female we are led to believe is SL'

IMO, we've a faller here at the first fence ...

 

[Cluesleuth]

'alledged sighting' and 'a female we are led to believe is SL'

IMO, we've a faller here at the first fence ...

Then that would take you back to the Sturgis Office.

* I choose to use alledged and female as at this point as I do not know if any of the witnesses personally knew SJL which for me would put a question mark over identification thats just the way I work.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I agree so with that in mind

The next alledged sighting of a female we are led to believe is SJL is at a property 37 Shorrolds rd. The sighting is recorded to have been witnessed by 3 people HR the neighbour at 35, a passerby 1 ND an unemployed Jeweller, and passerby 2 ND an unemployed cellarman.

To me its important to look at these people in detail, their witness statements, and their backgrounds its only after doing this can you progress.

If things dont check out then you have a question mark over the whole sighting and a veritable House of Cards situation.

Just my opinion

I agree. Also timings are vital. Interesting to have two unemployed passersby with those very specific trades.

 

[asyousay]

Has it been confirmed there was two calls to the POW that morning?


And if there was indeed two calls why has it never been confirmed what that second phone call was about?

 

[WestLondoner]

Has it been confirmed there was two calls to the POW that morning?


And if there was indeed two calls why has it never been confirmed what that second phone call was about?

I think it's in AS which I don't have to hand. CV claimed to DV that KF knew nothing about any of this but apparently both CV and KF spoke to her.