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

[Tombel]

As far as I’m aware Suzy couldn’t drive in the seat position it was in so it wasn’t down to a tight skirt. Her leg’s simply would not of been long enough to drive with the seat pushed that far back. Also as a women I wouldn’t need to pull the seat back to get out in a skirt that would be way too much hassle imo


That car was driven by somebody who wasn’t Suzy.

I appreciate that SJL couldn't have driven the car with the seat in full back position, but I was thinking that she would drive with the seat in the forward position and then when she stops and wants to get out, she slides the seat back to its full back position. It would only take a second to do.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

This is indeed a very good point - why touch the car at all unless if you leave it where she left it, it betrays where she really went.

There was no thus need to move it from 37SR. Her diary entry already points there; you're not going to divert suspicion away from there simply by moving the car.

So it must have been moved to disguise that she had been somewhere else. Could this somewhere else have been a different house in SR? The diary points to SR just the same, so moving the car does not help; it still looks like she went to SR. But conceivably, if parking was busy, she could have parked some way away from 37 - possibly outside or near 54. If you live there and harmed her there would you worry that she had inadvertently undermined your false trail by parking right outside? And would you move the car? I don't know. Rather than leave fingerprints or increase the chances of being seen in the car, you might be best advised to leave it where it is. You then let the police take months to connect you to her - which they may never do - and act dumb. If they find traces of her in your house, of course they did. She knew you socially.

All of which makes me think that the car was moved from the place she came to harm, and that this place was not SR.

Maybe regarding the false trail, it was never intended to be a false trail as nothing was ever intended to happen, it just unfolded. Did Sturgis have an estate agency board up at 37SR?

If the person SJL went with / to never in a million years intended to harm her or kill her - maybe they said come over to mine for lunch, if anyone at the office asks you can always say you're popping over to show 37SR, you could tell them I have an interest in it. Then something happened and they decided to lie, cover it up, dispose of SJL's body, and make sure her car was nowhere near Shorrolds?

 

[Cherwell]

I appreciate that SJL couldn't have driven the car with the seat in full back position, but I was thinking that she would drive with the seat in the forward position and then when she stops and wants to get out, she slides the seat back to its full back position. It would only take a second to do.

I drive with the seat as far forward as it will go, and I never have any difficulty in getting out of the car.

 

[Cherwell]

Maybe regarding the false trail, it was never intended to be a false trail as nothing was ever intended to happen, it just unfolded. Did Sturgis have an estate agency board up at 37SR?

If the person SJL went with / to never in a million years intended to harm her or kill her - maybe they said come over to mine for lunch, if anyone at the office asks you can always say you're popping over to show 37SR, you could tell them I have an interest in it. Then something happened and they decided to lie, cover it up, dispose of SJL's body, and make sure her car was nowhere near Shorrolds?

Plausible. They might not even have known which house she had pencilled in.

 

[Tombel]

Has anyone any idea what the bulky item is in the rear seat of the car?

 

[Tombel]

I drive with the seat as far forward as it will go, and I never have any difficulty in getting out of the car.

Thats a valid point. Cars in the 1980's tended to be much more compact than those today and that may have made it more difficult then. If she had driven the car herself, it would of course give us the problem of what SJL was doing driving herself to SR.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Plausible. They might not even have known which house she had pencilled in.

Yes, all that would require is someone saying 'do you want to come over to mine for lunch'? (with god knows what subtext) and SJL thinking she'd explain it away by blaming an impromptu 37SR viewing. The fact there was no details for a Mr Kipper to view leans towards that it was never true. If she'd gone to a viewing set up by a predator, she'd have created a contact card with their phony details that they'd have supplied as part of the ruse.

To my mind, if SJL wanted to escape the office for an hour or so and fly under the radar upon leaving, she'd have enacted her general demeanour and behaviours exactly how she normally did when going on a local viewing. That would lean towards she did take the key and the property details for 37SR - not because she was going there but because that was the way she always left the office on such an occasion.

She wouldn't have wanted to come to attention for acting oddly if she was covering up for sneaking off. Also, if she did sneak off to see someone (maybe a lover) on a false pretence, it would beg the question of - how many previous times had she done that exact same thing and returned after an hour with no-one batting an eyelid. How would anyone know because every other time, she'd come back present and correct having claimed to have been on an errand, at lunch, showing a property, etc, so there was nothing to wonder.

 

[WestLondoner]

What argues against the appointment being an assignation is that, as was pointed out way back a few threads ago, she didn't take her handbag. What woman goes off to meet a bloke without at least a hairbrush?

Of course, what could easily explain that is if he intended an assignation, and she didn't.

 

[Terryb808]

I appreciate that SJL couldn't have driven the car with the seat in full back position, but I was thinking that she would drive with the seat in the forward position and then when she stops and wants to get out, she slides the seat back to its full back position. It would only take a second to do.

Difficult one, I personally hated it when someone moved my seat position, it seemed top take ages to get it back in the "just right" position. But we're all different.

 

[Tombel]

Difficult one, I personally hated it when someone moved my seat position, it seemed top take ages to get it back in the "just right" position. But we're all different.

Thats a good point. It would be much easier if her driving position was full forward and full back to get out, but we don't know that. The car was used as a bit of a pool car during the day with at least one other person using that morning. SJL was possibly used to having to adjust it when she got in. You're right though, if you have a comfortable position and it's moved it can be hard to get it back.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

What argues against the appointment being an assignation is that, as was pointed out way back a few threads ago, she didn't take her handbag. What woman goes off to meet a bloke without at least a hairbrush?

Of course, what could easily explain that is if he intended an assignation, and she didn't.

Depends if she usually left the office with her handbag on viewings or not. Only her colleagues would know that. Also did she keep a hair comb / brush and a little make up in the car? A lot of women used to preen and tidy themselves when sitting in the car.

 

[Terryb808]

Depends if she usually left the office with her handbag on viewings or not. Only her colleagues would know that. Also did she keep a hair comb / brush and a little make up in the car? A lot of women used to preen and tidy themselves when sitting in the car.

Good point, I followed one woman on my way to work one day and she applied all her makeup during the journey.
Wasn’t driving slowly either, I thought at the time it was really skilful, but not clever if you had an accident.

 

[asyousay]

Depends if she usually left the office with her handbag on viewings or not. Only her colleagues would know that. Also did she keep a hair comb / brush and a little make up in the car? A lot of women used to preen and tidy themselves when sitting in the car.

It wasn’t her car , it was a company car. So I highly doubt she kept make up in it. A man had been using it that morning for example.

 

[Terryb808]

One thing unique (maybe) about the Monday she disappeared was the fact that during that working week it was her mother’s 50th birthday and SJL was told show could NOT have time out to attend her mother’s birthday party.

This is in AS’s book and I will look up the page number, secondly, she had a lunch appointment with two close friends (the celebrity couple) which they say they cancelled.

She must have allocated her lunch break on the Monday to this appointment. If she couldn’t get time out to attend her mothers birthday party, then a casual lunch with friends would be out.

No one apart from the couple said their lunch time meet was cancelled (again I’ll look up the entry in AS). On this basis you can see why SJL may have make a bogus Mr Kipper client viewing. She probably had never done this before.

Such an appointment would have given her a 1.5 hour time slot for lunch.

Also you can see that the office dynamics (the argument that morning) might have made her think, right, I’m having my lunch meet up anyway.

This is just one possible reason why SJL may have put in a fake client viewing. I truly believe she was conscientious and didn’t make a habit of doing it. But the circumstances do tend to make you think she did on this occasion.

 

[Cluesleuth]

AS book page 23
Fingerprints were first taken, though at this stage nobody could distinguish between which were Susannah's prints or Adam Legood's, or those of some other legitimate car user.
There seemed nevertheless to be two or three discernible prints, a partial palm smudge on the car's rear view mirror and a fingerprint on he windscreen seven inches from the nearside.
....................
Parabon Snapshot DNA Phenotyping have delveloped software capable of unlocking information contained in DNA.

We've discovered a way to recover DNA from fingerprints without destroying them

Lifting fingermarks from a crime scene often destroys the DNA they can contain.

theconversation.com

 

[Cherwell]

If she couldn’t get time out to attend her mothers birthday party, then a casual lunch with friends would be out.

I broadly agree with your suggestion, but I suspect she would have wanted a longer break for the birthday lunch as a special occasion.

On this subject, what is known about the pattern of lunch breaks? Did the staff take regular lunch breaks, or did they fit in their breaks around appointments?

 

[asyousay]

One thing unique (maybe) about the Monday she disappeared was the fact that during that working week it was her mother’s 50th birthday and SJL was told show could NOT have time out to attend her mother’s birthday party.

This is in AS’s book and I will look up the page number, secondly, she had a lunch appointment with two close friends (the celebrity couple) which they say they cancelled.

She must have allocated her lunch break on the Monday to this appointment. If she couldn’t get time out to attend her mothers birthday party, then a casual lunch with friends would be out.

No one apart from the couple said their lunch time meet was cancelled (again I’ll look up the entry in AS). On this basis you can see why SJL may have make a bogus Mr Kipper client viewing. She probably had never done this before.

Such an appointment would have given her a 1.5 hour time slot for lunch.

Also you can see that the office dynamics (the argument that morning) might have made her think, right, I’m having my lunch meet up anyway.

This is just one possible reason why SJL may have put in a fake client viewing. I truly believe she was conscientious and didn’t make a habit of doing it. But the circumstances do tend to make you think she did on this occasion.

Do we know if CC were looked into?


Money and greed are always big motivations in murder.

 

[Terryb808]

Do we know if CC were looked into?


Money and greed are always big motivations in murder.

Don’t know how much the police looked into CC, however, they have had a very noticeable low profile from the day SJL disappeared.
You’ll not find them in any of the many documentaries made about SJL. Bit odd when one of them has been on TV & Radio, but will never speak about SJL.

 

[asyousay]

Don’t know how much the police looked into CC, however, they have had a very noticeable low profile from the day SJL disappeared.
You’ll not find them in any of the many documentaries made about SJL. Bit odd when one of them has been on TV & Radio, but will never speak about SJL.

Yes and DV wouldn’t touch them in his book or talk about them in the YouTube video he did.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

The problem I have is loads of people in missing persons cases report sightings 100’s of miles away.

So why would that be any different in this case?



Just because the police believe a theory doesn’t mean they would have not followed up on other leads if people claim they saw her shopping In Sheffield the following day. If they saw her sitting in a pub in Putney again they would follow up that lead. We have multiple witnesses who say they saw her at SR that afternoon which ties in with the diary entry. The public are always over eager to help in cases like this. So the fact no other positive matches were found likely means she vanished after SR.


Moo

Logically, it could mean that no other positive matches were found -or- it could mean no other lines of enquiry were researched. One would need to know far more detail and have the 25,000 notes (? is that the number?) scrutinised IMO.