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

[lee sumner]

maybe CV just made up the story to get attention. to insert himself into the case, that was now a massive enquiry one year on.

 

[asyousay]

Possibly she needed the diary immediately.

Well none of her Colleagues reported that did they?

There was no sign she was desperate to get it back and reportedly was happy to grab it on the way home from work.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Well none of her Colleagues reported that did they?

There was no sign she was desperate to get it back and reportedly was happy to grab it on the way home from work.

Is that technically correct? I thought it was reported she was unsettled about the loss of her cheque book and diary. 'No sign' may not be true and even if there was no reported sign then that doesn't prove 'non desperation' it only proves 'not known'.

 

[Cherwell]

Looking at it logically, she should have felt reassured that the items were safe and that the bank was aware so that no fraudulent use could be made of her chequebook. It's not as though she suddenly discovered they were missing and was anxious to retrace her steps to find them before someone stole them. I'm sure most of us have experienced the panic of that kind of situation.

 

[WestLondoner]

Doesn't that rather depend what was in the diary? It's in the hands of some unknown bloke; is that OK?

 

[Terryb808]

Looking at it logically, she should have felt reassured that the items were safe and that the bank was aware so that no fraudulent use could be made of her chequebook. It's not as though she suddenly discovered they were missing and was anxious to retrace her steps to find them before someone stole them. I'm sure most of us have experienced the panic of that kind of situation.

Couple of points, CV originally (According to the police who interviewed him in July 86) never mentioned the two phone calls or the to paper with Sarah’s phone number on it.

Then one year later the story of the phone calls is added to the account the police officer’s took in July 86.

IMO there’s no way an experienced police office back in July 86 would loose such an important piece of information.

Secondly her Sturgis colleague JC said when she arrived that Monday morning she was stressed about her lost items, and that she phoned around trying to locate them.

At some point during the morning she located them and her mood changed. This is generally reflected in AS’s book, therefore, I am personally confident that the account is correct.

 

[Crusader21]

Secondly her Sturgis colleague JC said when she arrived that Monday morning she was stressed about her lost items, and that she phoned around trying to locate them.

At some point during the morning she located them and her mood changed. This is generally reflected in AS’s book, therefore, I am personally confident that the account is correct.

The info that SL was going to the PoW to collect her items at 6pm only comes from CV, and of course he would say that, would he?

As has been said before how could she collect them at 6pm when she had an important 'closing deal' house viewing elsewhere at that time?

You really would expect SL to 'nip up' to retrieve her valuable items at the first given opportunity ie lunchtime and last minute as it required, pencil in that cover house viewing appt in the desk diary, with her 'hirer and firer' big boss in the vacinity.

'Mr Kipper' obviously came from her mate Kip, aka Mr Herring who resided in Shorrolds Rd ....

 

[Terryb808]

The info that SL was going to the PoW to collect her items at 6pm only comes from CV, and of course he would say that, would he?

As has been said before how could she collect them at 6pm when she had an important 'closing deal' house viewing elsewhere at that time?

You really would expect SL to 'nip up' to retrieve her valuable items at the first given opportunity ie lunchtime and last minute as it required, pencil in that cover house viewing appt in the desk diary, with her 'hirer and firer' big boss in the vacinity.

'Mr Kipper' obviously came from her mate Kip, aka Mr Herring who resided in Shorrolds Rd ....

Yes, that’s exactly what DV has said was his logic when he concluded that’s where she went. He padded this out by highlighting that DJL never took the keys to 37 SR. But, he can’t be sure of this, after all the owner would have had another key holder given his job as a pilot.
Also depending on the type of lock it’s not exactly difficult to open a front door without damaging is (back in 86).
What tends to make this case so difficult is:

1. SJL was so secretive it’s hard to determine who she may have gone to meet that lunchtime.
2. Both the roads that SJL’s car was parked in are still today very quiet and a car jacking could have happened without anyone seeing it.
3. Stevenage Road is also a very quiet Road, well chosen for the abandoning of SJL’s car.

This has resulted in absolutely no witnesses if SJL never went to Shorrolds Road.

 

[Crusader21]

It's been speculated here, that the police know a lot more than what is presently in the public domain. And that this info all points in the direction of just one individual ...

With JC now in the final stages of his life, other players in this investigation now deceased and with over 36 years since the disappearance, one wonders will more information be made known via tv programmes or interviews with retired coppers who've worked on the case etc or is that it as far as what can be made known?

That is of course, if this additional information does actually exist ....

 

[Terryb808]

Sorry this is a bit long, some general thoughts based on what was available to the police investigation team in July 1986.

One thing I feel we do not fully appreciate is that on the morning of the 28th July 1986 everyone in the Sturgis office were expecting it to be just another busy Monday.
On this basis they would have been getting up to speed with what needed to happen during the week ahead and not paying that much attention to what Suzy Lamplugh was doing.
One person did have an inkling because he arrived first and opened the office, shortly afterwards Suzy arrived, and they had a brief time alone before the other Sturgis staff came in.
Suzy arrived a approximately 08.45am, her colleague JC said she was stressed bout her lost items, this suggests to me that she had not missed them over the weekend and only became aware of their loss when she went out to work on Monday morning.
JC also said that she spent time during the morning “phoning around” to locate them, she obviously succeeded because her mood changed from concern to upbeat., this is reflected in AS’s book.
Also in AS’s book is the statement that her colleagues felt that they never really knew the real Suzy Lamplugh at all. This demonstrates just how well she compartmentalised her life and IMO that this was particularly important to her.
One of her ex-boyfriends described her as “foul mouthed”, in her work environment this would not have gone down well, and it's an aspect of another different Suzy that she must have been able to switch in & out of at will.
Because she compartmentalised her life no one knew the real Suzy Lamplugh and this applies equally to her immediate family. On this basis its exceedingly difficult to know what & where she had planned to go on that Monday lunchtime.
We only have a small picture of that day to work with and that is the time between 08.45 & 12.40pm, after 12.40pm everything else is pure guesswork.

Some questions:

• Q1: The Mr Kipper appointment must be real because Suzy had never (or been caught) made a false appointment before.

• A1: Well no, just because someone has never done something before doesn’t mean they didn't do so this time, there has got to be a first time.

• Q2: She didn’t go to the Prince of Wales pub to collect her lost items; she had made a 6.00pm appointment with the temporary landlord to collect them.

• A2: Why not, there had been at least two calls on Monday between Suzy & the Prince of Wales pub, there is no reason why she hadn’t changed her mind and decided to collect her things at lunchtime. We only have the temporary landlords word that she had arranged the 6.00pm time and that she never actually turned up.

Where did she go?

Prince of Wales Pub

• If she went here and never came out of the pub the WJ sighting of Suzy’s car in Stevenage Road would be wrong, her car would most likely arrive between 3.00 & 5.00pm.

Shorrolds Road

• There are several sightings of a women who looked like Suzy in Shorrolds Road, however, they all came after the police appeal and according to AS there were none prior to this appeal. If she was taken from here by Mr Kipper, why did he bring her car all the way bay to Stevenage Road?

Stevenage Road

• Firstly is WJ and police detective MB correct when that place Suzy’s car in Stevenage Road within minutes of her leaving the Sturgis office. IMO they can only be correct if there were two perpetrators involved and one of them abandoned Suzy’s car while the other took her away.
• Secondly, for her car to be there so quickly, Suzy had to have been car jacked very shortly after she picked up her car in Whittingstall Road. Additionally for this to happen her car would need to have been facing away from the main road on which the Sturgis office is located.

The Prince of Wales and Stevenage Road options offer the best chance of Suzy disappearing without trace.

 

[Crusader21]

• Firstly is WJ and police detective MB correct when that place Suzy’s car in Stevenage Road within minutes of her leaving the Sturgis office. IMO they can only be correct if there were two perpetrators involved and one of them abandoned Suzy’s car while the other took her away.
• Secondly, for her car to be there so quickly, Suzy had to have been car jacked very shortly after she picked up her car in Whittingstall Road.

Terry, Mike Barely said in one of the tv docs that he believed SL drove directly herself to Stevenage Rd, immediately upon leaving her office. She partially blocked a garage, as she parked right behind the car of the person she was due to meet.

I know that fails to account for her drivers seat pushed back. Perhaps someone returned to her fiesta later, pushed back the seat whilst looking for something?

Suzy driving directly (herself) would mean that WJ is indeed correct with her timing and sighting.

 

[WiseOwl]

Terry, Mike Barely said in one of the tv docs that he believed SL drove directly herself to Stevenage Rd, immediately upon leaving her office. She partially blocked a garage, as she parked right behind the car of the person she was due to meet.

I know that fails to account for her drivers seat pushed back. Perhaps someone returned to her fiesta later, pushed back the seat whilst looking for something?

Suzy driving directly (herself) would mean that WJ is indeed correct with her timing and sighting.

The problem with this though is:

1. Why would she leave the drivers door unlocked?
2. Why leave the handbrake off?
3. Why leave her purse in the car?

Even if she was in a hurry, she would surely have taken her purse?

If she was in a hurry to leave her car and get into another vehicle, wouldn't this then suggest she left the area voluntarily rather than being abducted?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Sorry this is a bit long, some general thoughts based on what was available to the police investigation team in July 1986.

One thing I feel we do not fully appreciate is that on the morning of the 28th July 1986 everyone in the Sturgis office were expecting it to be just another busy Monday.
On this basis they would have been getting up to speed with what needed to happen during the week ahead and not paying that much attention to what Suzy Lamplugh was doing.
One person did have an inkling because he arrived first and opened the office, shortly afterwards Suzy arrived, and they had a brief time alone before the other Sturgis staff came in.
Suzy arrived a approximately 08.45am, her colleague JC said she was stressed bout her lost items, this suggests to me that she had not missed them over the weekend and only became aware of their loss when she went out to work on Monday morning.
JC also said that she spent time during the morning “phoning around” to locate them, she obviously succeeded because her mood changed from concern to upbeat., this is reflected in AS’s book.
Also in AS’s book is the statement that her colleagues felt that they never really knew the real Suzy Lamplugh at all. This demonstrates just how well she compartmentalised her life and IMO that this was particularly important to her.
One of her ex-boyfriends described her as “foul mouthed”, in her work environment this would not have gone down well, and it's an aspect of another different Suzy that she must have been able to switch in & out of at will.
Because she compartmentalised her life no one knew the real Suzy Lamplugh and this applies equally to her immediate family. On this basis its exceedingly difficult to know what & where she had planned to go on that Monday lunchtime.
We only have a small picture of that day to work with and that is the time between 08.45 & 12.40pm, after 12.40pm everything else is pure guesswork.

Some questions:

• Q1: The Mr Kipper appointment must be real because Suzy had never (or been caught) made a false appointment before.
• A1: Well no, just because someone has never done something before doesn’t mean they didn't do so this time, there has got to be a first time.
• Q2: She didn’t go to the Prince of Wales pub to collect her lost items; she had made a 6.00pm appointment with the temporary landlord to collect them.
• A2: Why not, there had been at least two calls on Monday between Suzy & the Prince of Wales pub, there is no reason why she hadn’t changed her mind and decided to collect her things at lunchtime. We only have the temporary landlords word that she had arranged the 6.00pm time and that she never actually turned up.

Where did she go?

Prince of Wales Pub

• If she went here and never came out of the pub the WJ sighting of Suzy’s car in Stevenage Road would be wrong, her car would most likely arrive between 3.00 & 5.00pm.

Shorrolds Road

• There are several sightings of a women who looked like Suzy in Shorrolds Road, however, they all came after the police appeal and according to AS there were none prior to this appeal. If she was taken from here by Mr Kipper, why did he bring her car all the way bay to Stevenage Road?

Stevenage Road

• Firstly is WJ and police detective MB correct when that place Suzy’s car in Stevenage Road within minutes of her leaving the Sturgis office. IMO they can only be correct if there were two perpetrators involved and one of them abandoned Suzy’s car while the other took her away.
• Secondly, for her car to be there so quickly, Suzy had to have been car jacked very shortly after she picked up her car in Whittingstall Road. Additionally for this to happen her car would need to have been facing away from the main road on which the Sturgis office is located.

The Prince of Wales and Stevenage Road options offer the best chance of Suzy disappearing without trace.

Unfortunately, this is full of inaccuracies and assumption. Like the mass of documentaries and other MSM that have over time become infected with falsehoods. It is essential to separate what is credible against that for which there is no evidential basis.

Only when emotion is put to one side and the evidence fully understood, not in part and selectively as by so many, but wholly, will there be enlightenment.

In terms of human behaviour. There is no better indicator for future behaviour than identifying past behaviour, particularly under stress.

 

[WestLondoner]

It's been speculated here, that the police know a lot more than what is presently in the public domain. And that this info all points in the direction of just one individual ...

With JC now in the final stages of his life, other players in this investigation now deceased and with over 36 years since the disappearance, one wonders will more information be made known via tv programmes or interviews with retired coppers who've worked on the case etc or is that it as far as what can be made known?

That is of course, if this additional information does actually exist ....

You can easily make all your information point towards one person if you don't investigate anyone else.

What we don't know is what information the police have that exculpates JC, or points to other people, or tends to undermine their theory, but that they haven't made public. We've discussed a number of those here previously.

For example, what sex offenders other than JC had recently been released from WS in 1986, and have they been focused on to the same extent as JC? If not, why not?

Then there are sex offenders in the area who hadn't yet been identified in 1986, but who have been since. Are they all accounted for?

Next there is the question of JC's height. If we assume for a moment that HR did see someone outside 37SR, the man he said he saw was, he thought, around 5'8". How tall is JC? If he is 5'8", yes he could be Mr Kipper, but could he have driven SJL's car with the seat pushed all the way back as it was found?

Re the search of 37SR. The police entered at some point, fingerprinted it and found nothing that suggested SJL had ever been inside. HR's claim was that he heard the door slam and saw a couple come out. If this was SJL, how did she manage to enter and leave the property without leaving any fingerprints? Either HR didn't see SJL at all or his account is embellished with things he didn't see (which actually we know is the case).

Why was BW's sighting dismissed when, if SJL had been abducted in her own car, she might well have been where BW saw her?

Where did JC get his supposed BMW from, given that the only car he had access to was a red Sierra? Were any BMWs reported stolen?

Do the police have descriptions of the Birmingham house-for-sale rapist and did he in fact look nothing like JC?

And so on. When you hear the prosecution's summary of the case they're going to make it always sounds pretty persuasive, but often only till you hear the defence's summary.

 

[Terryb808]

Terry, Mike Barely said in one of the tv docs that he believed SL drove directly herself to Stevenage Rd, immediately upon leaving her office. She partially blocked a garage, as she parked right behind the car of the person she was due to meet.

I know that fails to account for her drivers seat pushed back. Perhaps someone returned to her fiesta later, pushed back the seat whilst looking for something?

Suzy driving directly (herself) would mean that WJ is indeed correct with her timing and sighting.

Like all of us Mike B’s conclusion is based on his opinion and as there was no sighting of SJL arriving in Stevenage Road and then leaving with someone else it an opinion without supporting evidence.

 

[WestLondoner]

The problem with this though is:

1. Why would she leave the drivers door unlocked?
2. Why leave the handbrake off?
3. Why leave her purse in the car?

Even if she was in a hurry, she would surely have taken her purse?

If she was in a hurry to leave her car and get into another vehicle, wouldn't this then suggest she left the area voluntarily rather than being abducted?

Mike Barley said I think that nothing is known other than she left the office at 12.40 and her car was found at 22.01. He's obviously not bought into the Mr Kipper narrative.

She might leave the driver's door unlocked if she had pulled up behind another vehicle and got out to speak to its driver - "where are we going? Shall I follow you?" or something of that sort. She may have been expecting to get back in her car within 20 seconds, but never did.

Whatever errand she was on was compressible into a normal lunch-hour absence hence handbag left back at the office.

What torpedoes this theory rather is the seat position. It looks very much like she wasn't driving. You also end up trading one witness sighting for another: if WJ is right, then BW must necessarily have been wrong. Of the two, BW seems to me to be much less likely to be wrong.

 

[Terryb808]

Mike Barley said I think that nothing is known other than she left the office at 12.40 and her car was found at 22.01. He's obviously not bought into the Mr Kipper narrative.

She might leave the driver's door unlocked if she had pulled up behind another vehicle and got out to speak to its driver - "where are we going? Shall I follow you?" or something of that sort. She may have been expecting to get back in her car within 20 seconds, but never did.

Whatever errand she was on was compressible into a normal lunch-hour absence hence handbag left back at the office.

What torpedoes this theory rather is the seat position. It looks very much like she wasn't driving. You also end up trading one witness sighting for another: if WJ is right, then BW must necessarily have been wrong. Of the two, BW seems to me to be much less likely to be wrong.

As with all possible scenarios if BW is right where was SJL for about 1.5 hours prior to being seen driving north towards Hammersmith.
She had left the office for what was to be a normal lunch break, how did this change.
Either way I agree SJL never drove her Ford Fiesta to Stevenage Road, it just doesn’t fit.

 

[WiseOwl]

I don't see why Suzy would meet someone at Stevenage Road just to jump into someone else's car, I mean why would she do that?

If she had agreed to meet an unknown person for lunch, why not just drive to meet them at an arranged place?

To me, the car appears to have been left there by someone who left it rather quickly - someone who abandoned it and had no intention of ever returning to it.

 

[WestLondoner]

I don't see why Suzy would meet someone at Stevenage Road just to jump into someone else's car, I mean why would she do that?

If she had agreed to meet an unknown person for lunch, why not just drive to meet them at an arranged place?

To me, the car appears to have been left there by someone who left it rather quickly - someone who abandoned it and had no intention of ever returning to it.

It's a stretch, I agree. I have done similar in the past - met people at a randomish place and then gone on elsewhere - but there's nothing to say this is what happened.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Re the search of 37SR. The police entered at some point, fingerprinted it and found nothing that suggested SJL had ever been inside. HR's claim was that he heard the door slam and saw a couple come out. If this was SJL, how did she manage to enter and leave the property without leaving any fingerprints? Either HR didn't see SJL at all or his account is embellished with things he didn't see (which actually we know is the case).

Let's be clear......fingerprints are not readily lifted from many surfaces....granulated and porous ones in particular. Areas, which have heavy traffic will result in any fingerprints being overlain, which, if they can be lifted will likely render individual identification impossible.

In the event of SJL entering 37 SR, then opening a wooden front door, which has had plenty of traffic in the lock area, is unlikely to leave a recoverable and identifiable fingerprint. Likewise walking room to room will not leave fingerprints. If doorhandles are touched in high traffic areas then the opportunity for identifiable fingerprints is once again very limited.

As with all things, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing......resulting in incorrect assertions being made based on limited understanding.

To say that HR 'heard THE door slam' would be correct if he saw it too. That he heard A door slam would be correct if he didn't see it first hand. These are subtle differences but they are of critical importance. Accuracy is essential.