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

[Whitehall 1212]

I didn’t say there was no evidence she went to SR, but that the police found no evidence she went into 37 SR, no trace whatsoever, so if she went to SR, and never went into 37 SR.
Why did she go there?

What evidence would you expect to find if she went into 37 SR with a third party, wandered around and then left, with nothing untoward occurring within?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

JC wasnt questioned by police regarding the disappearance of Suzy Lamplugh in 1989 and 1990.

Yes he was. He was interviewed by DS Mike Barley and AN Other at least once between November 1987 and April 1989, following his arrest on suspicion of the abduction of Shirley Banks and until his subsequent conviction.

He was also interviewed a number of times during the 2000 review period at Hammersmith and Yorkshire by DCI Stuart Ault.

 

[WestLondoner]

I didn’t say there was no evidence she went to SR, but that the police found no evidence she went into 37 SR, no trace whatsoever, so if she went to SR, and never went into 37 SR.
Why did she go there?

And if she didn't go inside the house, why did HR say he heard people leaving it?

IMO he heard and saw SF and MG leaving the house and he just changed the time it happened.

 

[Terryb808]

And if she didn't go inside the house, why did HR say he heard people leaving it?

IMO he heard and saw SF and MG leaving the house and he just changed the time it happened.

Yes, agree, this is the most likely reason.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

And if she didn't go inside the house, why did HR say he heard people leaving it?

IMO he heard and saw SF and MG leaving the house and he just changed the time it happened.

You mean the same folks who knocked on HR's door and asked if he has seen SLJ earlier that afternoon?

The same folks who HR provided his first account of what he had seen/heard to?

I think we can quite clearly rule out that it was SF and MG he saw/heard leaving 37 SR.

The witnesses who saw SJL alone O/S 37 SR and then with the suited and booted Mr K support SJL's presence at 37 SR with an unknown male.

These sightings support the entry in SJL's desk diary.

This is the reality!

 

[asyousay]

And if she didn't go inside the house, why did HR say he heard people leaving it?

IMO he heard and saw SF and MG leaving the house and he just changed the time it happened.

SF and MG make no sense time wise as you are not looking at a difference in 25 mins here. You are literally looking at about 2/3 hours time difference.

Unless you are implying a affair and they used the property as a hook up but there is zero evidence for that either.

 

[WestLondoner]

SF and MG make no sense time wise as you are not looking at a difference in 25 mins here. You are literally looking at about 2/3 hours time difference.

Unless you are implying a affair and they used the property as a hook up but there is zero evidence for that either.

I just think HR wanted a bit of attention, and to engage with MG. He had to walk back the bit of his supposed account where he saw the woman being bundled into a car. That didn't happen. If he'd also had to walk back the bit where he saw someone at 1pm rather than 3pm, that's the end of his little spell centre stage, because if all he saw was SF and MG, then he saw nothing.

The bit where she's bundled into a vehicle isn't true, and nor is the bit where she came out of the house, because she never went in it. The detail that Kipper's 25-30 is also untrue because he later said the 44yo diamond dealer was the dead spit of Mr Kipper. So that's three inaccuracies / fabrications / untruths. Giving the wrong time is just #4.

Nobody came forward with further sightings after the press conference. The later claimed sightings were over a week later and all repeated what the first TV reconstruction showed, including the bit where SJL is shown leaving the house, which didn't happen. The CW reconstruction had the same result: more confirmatory sightings of Mr Kipper, as seen on TV.

So Mr Kipper was a smart, scruffy man aged 25 to 30 in his mid-40s, with a slim, chubby build and two noses, one broken and one not, carrying and not carrying a bottle, who was too short to have driven the Fiesta.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I just think HR wanted a bit of attention, and to engage with MG. He had to walk back the bit of his supposed account where he saw the woman being bundled into a car. That didn't happen. If he'd also had to walk back the bit where he saw someone at 1pm rather than 3pm, that's the end of his little spell centre stage, because if all he saw was SF and MG, then he saw nothing.

The bit where she's bundled into a vehicle isn't true, and nor is the bit where she came out of the house, because she never went in it. The detail that Kipper's 25-30 is also untrue because he later said the 44yo diamond dealer was the dead spit of Mr Kipper. So that's three inaccuracies / fabrications / untruths. Giving the wrong time is just #4.

Nobody came forward with further sightings after the press conference. The later claimed sightings were over a week later and all repeated what the first TV reconstruction showed, including the bit where SJL is shown leaving the house, which didn't happen. The CW reconstruction had the same result: more confirmatory sightings of Mr Kipper, as seen on TV.

So Mr Kipper was a smart, scruffy man aged 25 to 30 in his mid-40s, with a slim, chubby build and two noses, one broken and one not, carrying and not carrying a bottle, who was too short to have driven the Fiesta.

I don't suppose there is any MSM to support all of your assertions?

I would strongly suggest visiting the factual details of this case, without the spin, for appropriate objectivity.

 

[WestLondoner]

Reading AS, he says of PSS that she had arranged lunch with SJL who suggested Monday. PSS' nanny had that day off, so the lunch was moved to Tuesday. This does rather muller DV's idea that she needed a pretext to leave the office, in that she didn't expect to need one when she booked that lunch.

The implication is that she was indeed going to meet someone she knew, but the problem here is that there are multiple sightings of her car in SR including one at 12 noon. This is of course impossible, but assuming a mistake was made as to the time of that one, it does look awfully like her car was driven straight to 123SR and not by her.

BC and CC, the BT workers in SR, did not say they didn't notice the car; they said they noticed nothing untoward. So the car could have been there and just didn't attract their attention.

 

[Crusader21]

Reading AS, he says of PSS that she had arranged lunch with SJL who suggested Monday. PSS' nanny had that day off, so the lunch was moved to Tuesday. This does rather muller DV's idea that she needed a pretext to leave the office, in that she didn't expect to need one when she booked that lunch.

Alternatively there may well indeed have been a strict Sturgis lunchtime routine of no official lunch, grab a quick sandwich etc.

And PSS may have been incorrect re these lunch appointments!

 

[Terryb808]

Reading AS, he says of PSS that she had arranged lunch with SJL who suggested Monday. PSS' nanny had that day off, so the lunch was moved to Tuesday. This does rather muller DV's idea that she needed a pretext to leave the office, in that she didn't expect to need one when she booked that lunch.

The implication is that she was indeed going to meet someone she knew, but the problem here is that there are multiple sightings of her car in SR including one at 12 noon. This is of course impossible, but assuming a mistake was made as to the time of that one, it does look awfully like her car was driven straight to 123SR and not by her.

BC and CC, the BT workers in SR, did not say they didn't notice the car; they said they noticed nothing untoward. So the car could have been there and just didn't attract their attention.

This is a very logical take on what might have happened, initially the police went with this and then moved over to Shorrolds Road and Mr Kupper.
Doing so because they had no leads to follow from Stevenage Road, as I said earlier, Stevenage Road even today at the same time of day in July is very quiet.
It appears that either by good planning or just luck thd person who abandoned SJL’s car was noticed by no one.

 

[Cherwell]

Alternatively there may well indeed have been a strict Sturgis lunchtime routine of no official lunch, grab a quick sandwich etc.
And PSS may have been incorrect re these lunch appointments!

"Incorrect"? But why would she involve herself?

On the other point, it shouldn't be difficult to ascertain the lunch routine. I would imagine the likeliest scenario is that staff were entitled to take a lunch break, but that in practice, if they had no particular reason to go out, they would just take time out for a sandwich. So as not to miss any lucrative leads.

 

[WestLondoner]

I was sniggering the other day at the account in AS of how Uri Geller got involved in the SJL case. Despite the no doubt impressive psychic powers he intended to use to find SJL, they couldn't help him find East Sheen off the M4, and he had to be talked in.

However, it then occurred to that there's an astonishing resemblance between Uri Geller and Mr Kipper.

Here's Mr Kipper again.

And here's Uri Geller.

Pretty amazing. I wonder if UG was able to account for his movements at the time? Did HR happen to notice if Mr Kipper was holding a spoon?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I was sniggering the other day at the account in AS of how Uri Geller got involved in the SJL case. Despite the no doubt impressive psychic powers he intended to use to find SJL, they couldn't help him find East Sheen off the M4, and he had to be talked in.

However, it then occurred to that there's an astonishing resemblance between Uri Geller and Mr Kipper.

Here's Mr Kipper again.

And here's Uri Geller.

Pretty amazing. I wonder if UG was able to account for his movements at the time?

It must be a hoot playing 'Guess Who?' with you

 

[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.

This works perfectly if there were two perpetrators, in the scenario above the second person takes her car.

He’s not exactly going to mess around adjusting the drivers seat, just move it back and drive away.

That would explain how SJL’s car arrived so early in Stevenage Road. The quoted times for SJL leaving the Sturgis office have to be approximate because the office had no wall clock.

Unless someone was keeping a watch on her movements, they couldn’t possibly be certain exactly when she left.

I say this because there were few people in the office at that time, it’s just another Monday morning to them, and they were not asked to recall anything until the Tuesday.

Once an account goes into print (as in AS) it becomes gospel and set in stone.
There’s no reason SJL couldn’t have left the office at 12.30pm on Monday.

Going back to the scenario above, if the perpetrators followed SJL in a car, all they would need to do is pass her parked car so they were in front.

Then as she drives down Whittingstall Road pull out in front of her. She would likely get out to see what was wrong and then the abduction takes place.

Parts of Whittingstall Road are quiet and the swiftness of the actions would result in no witnesses.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

This works perfectly if there were two perpetrators, in the scenario above the second person takes her car.

He’s not exactly going to mess around adjusting the drivers seat, just move it back and drive away.

That would explain how SJL’s car arrived so early in Stevenage Road. The quoted times for SJL leaving the Sturgis office have to be approximate because the office had no wall clock.

Unless someone was keeping a watch on her movements, they couldn’t possibly be certain exactly when she left.

I say this because there were few people in the office at that time, it’s just another Monday morning to them, and they were not asked to recall anything until the Tuesday.

Once an account goes into print (as in AS) it becomes gospel and set in stone.
There’s no reason SJL couldn’t have left the office at 12.30pm on Monday.

Going back to the scenario above, if the perpetrators followed SJL in a car, all they would need to do is pass her parked car so they were in front.

Then as she drives down Whittingstall Road pull out in front of her. She would likely get out to see what was wrong and then the abduction takes place.

Parts of Whittingstall Road are quiet and the swiftness of the actions would result in no witnesses.

And the corroborated witness sightings in Shorrolds Road.....conveniently ignored for this little interlude. An inconvenient truth!

 

[WestLondoner]

If the WJ sighting is accurate time wise then SJL's car was driven to StR (Stevenage; hereafter StR for convenience) by a man pretty much straight from near the office. Working backwards from StR it does suggest she was taken more or less on leaving the office. And as you say, if that's so, then she was with someone else while her car was being dumped.

At one point I thought she had pulled in behind someone's car to have a brief conversation. The seat position undermines that and also my other notion, which was that someone cut sharply in front of her to make her stop her car. That explains how it was left, but not the seat position - and it also leaves you wondering what she was doing in StR anyway.

AS is also frustratingly vague here. He says the police got AL to sit in SJL's car to see if the seat position had been changed (I'm paraphrasing) but as described it does not say he was made to try out the seat position himself. It could as easily mean he sat in the passenger seat and a WPC sat at the wheel and he opined on whether she was in the position SJL would have been.

Between the lines of this not very detailed account, it sounds like the seat was pushed back, but not necessarily so far back that a female of SJL's height could not have driven it. That is, people of the same height like different driving positions; did SJL just like the seat well back? The only way to know would then be to ask a regular passenger if this looked like her usual seat position.

All of which is asking whether she definitely did not drive her car to StR. What if she did?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

If the WJ sighting is accurate time wise then SJL's car was driven to StR (Stevenage; hereafter StR for convenience) by a man pretty much straight from near the office. Working backwards from StR it does suggest she was taken more or less on leaving the office. And as you say, if that's so, then she was with someone else while her car was being dumped.

At one point I thought she had pulled in behind someone's car to have a brief conversation. The seat position undermines that and also my other notion, which was that someone cut sharply in front of her to make her stop her car. That explains how it was left, but not the seat position - and it also leaves you wondering what she was doing in StR anyway.

AS is also frustratingly vague here. He says the police got AL to sit in SJL's car to see if the seat position had been changed (I'm paraphrasing) but as described it does not say he was made to try out the seat position himself. It could as easily mean he sat in the passenger seat and a WPC sat at the wheel and he opined on whether she was in the position SJL would have been.

Between the lines of this not very detailed account, it sounds like the seat was pushed back, but not necessarily so far back that a female of SJL's height could not have driven it. That is, people of the same height like different driving positions; did SJL just like the seat well back? The only way to know would then be to ask a regular passenger if this looked like her usual seat position.

All of which is asking whether she definitely did not drive her car to StR. What if she did?

What's happened to the 'SJL drove to the PoW' theory?

All these 'alternative' theories seem to change with the weather or the day of the week.

None of them are supported by the evidence that is in the public domain. The police have plenty more besides.

 

[Terryb808]

If the WJ sighting is accurate time wise then SJL's car was driven to StR (Stevenage; hereafter StR for convenience) by a man pretty much straight from near the office. Working backwards from StR it does suggest she was taken more or less on leaving the office. And as you say, if that's so, then she was with someone else while her car was being dumped.

At one point I thought she had pulled in behind someone's car to have a brief conversation. The seat position undermines that and also my other notion, which was that someone cut sharply in front of her to make her stop her car. That explains how it was left, but not the seat position - and it also leaves you wondering what she was doing in StR anyway.

AS is also frustratingly vague here. He says the police got AL to sit in SJL's car to see if the seat position had been changed (I'm paraphrasing) but as described it does not say he was made to try out the seat position himself. It could as easily mean he sat in the passenger seat and a WPC sat at the wheel and he opined on whether she was in the position SJL would have been.

Between the lines of this not very detailed account, it sounds like the seat was pushed back, but not necessarily so far back that a female of SJL's height could not have driven it. That is, people of the same height like different driving positions; did SJL just like the seat well back? The only way to know would then be to ask a regular passenger if this looked like her usual seat position.

All of which is asking whether she definitely did not drive her car to StR. What if she did?

In AS ( don’t have the page number) it says that SJL had the seat 4 / 5 notches back from the fully forward position. Her colleague JC used the car immediately before she went out that lunchtime and he was of a similar height and did NOT alter the seat position.
On this basis for the police to ask the question of AL, the seat must have been moved.
Also it’s been said by DV that the seat was “all the way back”. I can’t recall reading this in AS, if anyone has please confirm it.
It’s an important point because if it was all the way back we can’t realistically estimate the last drivers true height.

 

[WestLondoner]

That's right - you could infer a minimum but not a maximum. If Fiestas were designed to fit a maximum 6' driver then the seat position being all the way back probably tells you only that the driver was 5'11" or more. Interesting but not that informative.

I still want to know how tall JC is.if he's too short to have driven the Fiesta with its seat in that position, I doubt we will ever find that out, for obvious reasons.