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

[Cherwell]

Sept 1985 a woman was attacked in Barnett JD fitted the description of the attacker and was put on id parade the victim failed to pick him out.

They should say "did not pick him out".
"Failed" to pick him out implies that she was wrong. But perhaps it wasn't him!

 

[WestLondoner]

Thought experiment.

One of the reasons people tend to be sceptical of DV's "something happened at the PoW" theory is that it's preposterous to imagine some random pub landlord instantly, spontaneously and murderously attacks SJL the moment she arrives, more or less, then hides the body. It just seems too far-fetched.

So how about this thought experiment. Imagine it's your stuff at that pub, and you know what you know, but the landlord isn't CV, it's Peter Sutcliffe. You know what he did, and what he's capable of.

Would you feel safe going to that pub?

 

[Pinkizzy]

Where did CV work before the PoW?

 

[Cherwell]

Thought experiment.

One of the reasons people tend to be sceptical of DV's "something happened at the PoW" theory is that it's preposterous to imagine some random pub landlord instantly, spontaneously and murderously attacks SJL the moment she arrives, more or less, then hides the body. It just seems too far-fetched.

So how about this thought experiment. Imagine it's your stuff at that pub, and you know what you know, but the landlord isn't CV, it's Peter Sutcliffe. You know what he did, and what he's capable of.

Would you feel safe going to that pub?

I would go in the evening after work when there are likely to be other customers there, and I would not go unaccompanied.
Not sure what that proves.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I would go in the evening after work when there are likely to be other customers there, and I would not go unaccompanied.
Not sure what that proves.

That going in the daytime when no-one else is around is high risk?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Thought experiment.

One of the reasons people tend to be sceptical of DV's "something happened at the PoW" theory is that it's preposterous to imagine some random pub landlord instantly, spontaneously and murderously attacks SJL the moment she arrives, more or less, then hides the body. It just seems too far-fetched.

So how about this thought experiment. Imagine it's your stuff at that pub, and you know what you know, but the landlord isn't CV, it's Peter Sutcliffe. You know what he did, and what he's capable of.

Would you feel safe going to that pub?

To consider this hypothetic scenario/'experiment' is to completely dismiss the overwhelming fact that serial killers have a a significant degree of self control, in as much that they are careful to choose victims, time and location with the intent to faciitate the offence and to avoid the risk of being disturbed/identified/arrested.

To put it more succinctly.....they don't **** on their own doorstep!

This rarely applies when the victim is known to their killer, when very different drivers are likely to be at play.

 

[WestLondoner]

The point is whether you only think DV's hypothesis is implausible because, by default, you assume CV is harmless. Would you still think DV's hypothesis doubtful if you knew the bloke you were going to meet had killed women previously?

Suppose John Cannan had been the relief barman. Would you still think SJL couldn't have been killed on her arrival because stuff like that just doesn't happen?

I think it depends on who we are talking about; and in CV's case, we don't actually know.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The point is whether you only think DV's hypothesis is implausible because, by default, you assume CV is harmless. Would you still think DV's hypothesis doubtful if you knew the bloke you were going to meet had killed women previously?

Suppose John Cannan had been the relief barman. Would you still think SJL couldn't have been killed on her arrival because stuff like that just doesn't happen?

I think it depends on who we are talking about; and in CV's case, we don't actually know.

It's a licensed trade, and was in 1986. All landlords and relief landlords are/were vetted by the police before any licence is issued.

Any hint of previous convictions or allegations relating to dishonesty, violence, disorderly conduct, illicit drugs or alcohol related crimes and no licence.

Your hypothetical situation now involves someone with a predilection for extreme uncontrolled violence with no criminal record or having come to the notice of police, which has enabled him to obtain an on/off licence to run a pub.

Those who become serial killers invariably have history of previous criminality, some of which will have come to the notice of police or resulted in conviction.

It's all a tad far fetched....much like DV's fairy story.

 

[lee sumner]

If this was JC and he was friends with her why choose a working day at lunch?

It would make a lot more sense at night where she is a lot less likely to be missed for many hours. Within a few hours she was missed and then MG went to her last known location to check it out.

GOOD POINT. THIS MAKES ME THINK SHE WAS TAKEN BY A STRANGER, NOT SOMEONE SHE KNEW.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

If this was JC and he was friends with her why choose a working day at lunch?

It would make a lot more sense at night where she is a lot less likely to be missed for many hours. Within a few hours she was missed and then MG went to her last known location to check it out.

If SJL knew her killer and had become disinterested in pursuing a relationship with him, despite his persistent advances, then it is quite possible that the 'house viewing' to end the relationship was of her making after he asked to meet.

Maybe she felt that it afforded her some 'protection' by meeting in daylight at a recorded location, and which provided her with a reason to break off the meeting....as in 'II need to get back to the office'.

If the killer had been stalking SJL but had not met maybe he arranged a house viewing to meet SJL with the intention of gaining her trust/interest to go elsewhere with him.....very JC with champagne, suited and booted!

Maybe that worked but he subsequently made unwanted advances....and the resultant rejection was the catalyst for his extreme reaction.

 

[Cherwell]

The point is whether you only think DV's hypothesis is implausible because, by default, you assume CV is harmless. Would you still think DV's hypothesis doubtful if you knew the bloke you were going to meet had killed women previously?

Suppose John Cannan had been the relief barman. Would you still think SJL couldn't have been killed on her arrival because stuff like that just doesn't happen?

I think it depends on who we are talking about; and in CV's case, we don't actually know.

I just don't think she went there at all, so it's all moot as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Terryb808]

I just don't think she went there at all, so it's all moot as far as I'm concerned.

If you look at this logically we (in the public domain, and without DV’s police file) have no evidence that CV did anything wrong or lied in the statement he made one year after the event.

It just might have been a small thing to CV finding SJL’s things that Sunday night and one year on he honestly couldn’t fully recall what he did in the days that followed.

He’d have known why DV was interviewing him and also the speculation that surrounded him within the media. This speculation was rife for a considerable period prior to DV releasing his book.

I’d expect DV to be apprehensive and to try and give as full an account as he could.
Are we guilty of making the facts fit him?

 

[WestLondoner]

I don't think so, really. When you read DV's book your first impression is bewilderment: how is she there now, when she never turned up there then? CV really only fits into the picture because when some bloke turns up to talk to him, he immediately knows it's about "Miss Lampoo". By inference he's involved as he's the only person successfully interviewed who was there that day. But as has been frequently pointed out, if the pub was open, others were there too.

One's reaction to DV's insinuation tends to be incredulity: "How is that even possible?" But if it were John Cannan or Fred West who'd been working at that pub, you wouldn't be incredulous at all. The police case against JC is substantially based on the supposition that it's the kind of thing he'd do, and they're right, it is. It's not at all obvious how or where or when, or that he was even there, but it's definitely the kind of thing he'd do. That's why he's a plausible suspect. All DV is implying is that possibly there was someone at that pub, and this was the kind of thing he'd do, too.

 

[Terryb808]

I've added an extract from Andrew Stephens book "The Suzy Lamplugh Story", its essentially the key parts related to CV and what happened when he was interviewed on the 29th July 1986 (when the police collected SJL's things).
Then again one year later when they re-interviewed all those involved back in July 1986.

It's been voiced within the thread that AS felt uneasy about CV, however, you can read it this way if you want to, but, also it could be he was just stating facts. The police had an uneasy feeling, but was that about CV or the that he may have told the truth and they lost the chance of catching Mr Kipper because they actually did loose the piece of paper with the phone number on it?

AS page 163 / 164

There then followed one curious development which was never satisfactorily explained. CV, the former acting landlord of the Prince of Wales public house in Upper Richmond Road – who discovered SJL’s missing chequebook, pocket diary and a postcard on the front steps of his pub late on Friday evening before she went missing, talked to police again and this time came up with some new information.

Like most if not all, the other witnesses in the case, he was a patently honest and straightforward person.

AS goes on to outline that SJL was to collect her things at 6.00pm on that Monday, he then mentioned the two phone calls said he received that Monday afternoon, one from Sarah and the second from a policemen. Sarah apparently left a contact phone number, which CV said he gave to the police officers when they call one year earlier.

CV stood his ground on this point saying de definitely gave the police a piece of paper with Sarah’s phone number on it.

The initial CV police interview took place very soon after SJL disappeared and the two officers involved were trusted members of the police team, they were adamant that CV had NOT given them a piece of paper with a phone number on it.

The two men were valued & trusted members of the investigative team, and finally senior detectives concluded that, again as in the case of many others, CV’s memory was playing tricks.

But it left an uneasy feeling.

 

[Crusader21]

Your hypothetical situation now involves someone with a predilection for extreme uncontrolled violence with no criminal record or having come to the notice of police, which has enabled him to obtain an on/off licence to run a pub.

Those who become serial killers invariably have history of previous criminality, some of which will have come to the notice of police or resulted in conviction.

It's all a tad far fetched....much like DV's fairy story.

We've had serial killing doctors, nurses who've murdered babies and females abducting by murdering serving policemen.

All 'a tad far fetched' but unfortunately true ....

 

[Whitehall 1212]

We've had serial killing doctors, nurses who've murdered babies and females abducting by murdering serving policemen.

All 'a tad far fetched' but unfortunately true ....

You've missed my 'succinct' comment in your appraisal, regarding doorsteps!

The essence is that firstly all the established information has to be shelved, without sound reasons for rebuttal, except for SJL's property being at the PoW.

Next, we are asked to assume, contrary to what is indicated, that SJL headed back to Putney and the PoW at lunchtime, when she lived only a short walk away and could have gone later, in her own time....and as she had arranged.

Finally, that she befell some 'incident' which necessitated her demise being covered up and her body concealed....both of these occurring in a way in which both the incident (pub lunchtime) and the bodies decomposition would go unnoticed.

As I said.....it's all a 'tad far fetched'!

 

[asyousay]

The problem is SL was never seen around POW that day.


Yet multiple witnesses say they saw somebody who looked remarkably like Suzy at SR.


So why would LE suspect CV when there isn’t a single bit of evidence she went there?

 

[WestLondoner]

We've had serial killing doctors, nurses who've murdered babies and females abducting by murdering serving policemen.

All 'a tad far fetched' but unfortunately true ....

And Dennis Nilsen was a former police officer. There's actually quite a lot of criminality by police officers, although IMO, all this says is that in the same way bank robbers see the advantages of getting into banks, a certain type of criminal sees the advantages of getting into the police.

 

[Crusader21]

The problem is SL was never seen around POW that day.

The public were directed by the police, to provide witness statements from Shorrolds Road, not Putney.

So of course there was no reported sightings around the Pow that day ....

 

[WestLondoner]

The problem is SL was never seen around POW that day.


Yet multiple witnesses say they saw somebody who looked remarkably like Suzy at SR.


So why would LE suspect CV when there isn’t a single bit of evidence she went there?

Do we know that, though? We don't know what's in the police files that was overlooked or discounted. We do know that at least two sightings that didn't fit were discarded. WJ's sighting of SJL's Fiesta at 12.45 was dismissed as wrong, as was BW's sighting of her at 2.45.

If you were trying to find out who killed JFK and you appealed for witnesses who were in Washington at time, you'd end up with no witnesses. If you look in the wrong place you don't find answers.