UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #5

[Terryb808]

Do you know why CV said he found the items on the Sunday and why he later said he had taken two calls during Monday about them and SJL? How did the police find out about the property and where it was?

Why did AL say he was at the PoW with SJL then later deny they had ever been there?

Excellent points, they need to be answered in order to make the post by #AfricanGrey hold water.
You can’t ignore CV changing his story one year after SJL disappeared, his changes were not small ones.
He accused the officers that interviewed him in July 86 of being incompetent and loosing vital information.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Did SJL clarify who she was speaking with when she called the pub? The people in the Sturgis office would have heard this

 

[WestLondoner]

CV seems to agree that the police were round there that same evening, because he commented to DV that he was surprised how quick they were to come considering SJL was an adult.

He is also pretty clear that he looked in the diary for a number, found none and rang the bank the next day:

‘Found the chequebook the night before...And then I phoned up the bank the next morning, because there was no telephone number in the chequebook or in the diary....And they said to get in touch with her, and that she’d get in touch with me,’ he carried on. ‘I got a phone call back about dinner time, before we opened, saying that, “Got her chequebook and diary. And she’d be round to pick ’em up later”...about five, six o’clock, nobody turned up for the chequebook, we’re shutting before evening session. And then I got a phone call, presumably it said from… Chelsea police station, saying that they’d be sending somebody round. “Had she been for the chequebook?” I said no. And then by ten o’clock, I’d got, what? Three police officers there?...Yeah, it was just odd, the way that everybody sort of… it happened, because there were…too many people interested too quick…'

Videcette, David. FINDING SUZY: The Hunt for Missing Estate Agent Suzy Lamplugh and 'Mr Kipper' (p. 167). DNA Books. Kindle Edition.

This in itself is pretty interesting. MG involved the police about 6.45, at which time clearly all the other Sturgis branch staff would have left for the day. The police can't have spoken to any of them before the following morning, so who did tell them SJL's property was at the pub? It can only have been MG, but how did he know?

The phone call CV later remembered from the police is thus quite likely one they made to ask if she'd been, and to say they'd come round. The mystifying bit is why, given that all this happened so quickly, he either never mentioned to the police the other calls about SJL, from a woman, that he later said had come in that afternoon; or if he did, that the police took no notice.

If it's correct that the police were there around 10, then they sent officers to the pub at the same time as they sent others to her flat. They broke into her flat. Minutes later they found the car and they searched 123SR. But they didn't ask to search the pub. You do wonder why.

 

[Terryb808]

CV seems to agree that the police were round there that same evening, because he commented to DV that he was surprised how quick they were to come considering SJL was an adult.

He is also pretty clear that he looked in the diary for a number, found none and rang the bank the next day:



Videcette, David. FINDING SUZY: The Hunt for Missing Estate Agent Suzy Lamplugh and 'Mr Kipper' (p. 167). DNA Books. Kindle Edition.

This in itself is pretty interesting. MG involved the police about 6.45, at which time clearly all the other Sturgis branch staff would have left for the day. The police can't have spoken to any of them before the following morning, so who did tell them SJL's property was at the pub? It can only have been MG, but how did he know?

The phone call CV later remembered from the police is thus quite likely one they made to ask if she'd been, and to say they'd come round. The mystifying bit is why, given that all this happened so quickly, he either never mentioned to the police the other calls about SJL, from a woman, that he later said had come in that afternoon; or if he did, that the police took no notice.

If it's correct that the police were there around 10, then they sent officers to the pub at the same time as they sent others to her flat. They broke into her flat. Minutes later they found the car and they searched 123SR. But they didn't ask to search the pub. You do wonder why.

Her car turning up in Stevenage Road is pretty important, it strikes me that if Kipper is JC, why go to all the trouble of bringing it back to Fulham?
IMO that’s down BW recognising SJL driving along the FPR at approximately 2.30pm.

The other reason it ended up in SR (if DV is correct) is down to CV and the PoW being a popular Fulham supporters pub.

It’s not inconceivable that in a panic it’s the first place that CV would think of.
Far enough away, yet easy enough to get back to the PoW quickly.

DV’s narrative (IMO) depends entirely on the PoW not reopening until the evening and CV being alone.
It’s possible that the stock take finished by 12.00 noon and the pub opened at 1.00pm, also it could be that the permanent landlord said he was happy for business to resume on Monday evening.
The police never went down the CV / PoW route at the time, in the Stephen book he indicated that he was uncomfortable with CV, why say this if he didyhave his suspicions.

 

[lee sumner]

Her car turning up in Stevenage Road is pretty important, it strikes me that if Kipper is JC, why go to all the trouble of bringing it back to Fulham?
IMO that’s down BW recognising SJL driving along the FPR at approximately 2.30pm.

The other reason it ended up in SR (if DV is correct) is down to CV and the PoW being a popular Fulham supporters pub.

It’s not inconceivable that in a panic it’s the first place that CV would think of.
Far enough away, yet easy enough to get back to the PoW quickly.

DV’s narrative (IMO) depends entirely on the PoW not reopening until the evening and CV being alone.
It’s possible that the stock take finished by 12.00 noon and the pub opened at 1.00pm, also it could be that the permanent landlord said he was happy for business to resume on Monday evening.
The police never went down the CV / PoW route at the time, in the Stephen book he indicated that he was uncomfortable with CV, why say this if he didyhave his suspicions.

it was part of the plan to dump SLP car on stevenage rd. it was directly across the road from the large yellow sturgis for sale sign. there is no way that is a coincidence.

 

[Cherwell]

If it's correct that the police were there around 10, then they sent officers to the pub at the same time as they sent others to her flat. They broke into her flat.

Probably the same officers. Her flat was only a couple of hundred metres from the pub so they would have done both calls.

 

[Terryb808]

it was part of the plan to dump SLP car on stevenage rd. it was directly across the road from the large yellow sturgis for sale sign. there is no way that is a coincidence.

That being the case it leaves out the police prime suspect JC. He’s not the sort of criminal who plans, look how he was caught.

 

[Terryb808]

I appreciate it is frustrating and I am sorry I cannot answer more questions but I just do not have permission. Everything I wrote is what happened at the time. My point in making the posts was just to say don’t believe everything you read, even from respected journalists. At the end of the day their main interest is to sell books.
Ok, I get that there is major scepticism as I am not able to answer your questions, I can’t do anything about that at this time, so I guess you would prefer to believe the entrenched, though erroneous, narratives until the situation changes.

I always treat everything with a degree of cynicism, the book that appears to have generated your email is (Finding Suzy by David Videsette).
DV took the time to re-interview witnesses and based his conclusions on what these witnesses said.
While his conclusions are based on circumstantial evidence, so are the Mets that resulted in John Cannan being announced as prime suspect all those years ago.
There’s no evidence linking either CV or JC to the disappearance of Suzy Lamplugh and that’s because as the Mets detective MB said “all we know is that Suzy left the office at approximately 12.40pm on Monday & her car was found at 10.00pm on Monday evening”.
That fact has not changed appreciably in the last 30 plus years and counting.
A lot of posters to this forum are well informed regarding the disappearance of Suzy Lamplugh and know only to well that all you read or see may not be factual.

 

[WestLondoner]

Neither the police nor their media frontmen have much of value to contribute to a discussion of who was responsible for SJL's disappearance, IMHO. Despite the resources and powers at their disposal, they can't provide an account of what happened between 12.40 and 10pm that day. The CPS dismissed their case against JC because they failed to establish even that he and SJL ever met.

 

[WestLondoner]

I guess you would prefer to believe the entrenched, though erroneous, narratives until the situation changes.

The only entrenched narrative really is that JC dunnit, which is believed by nobody who 1/ is independent of the police and 2/ has seen all their evidence. This category includes just the CPS, in effect, but their scepticism speaks volumes.

When you go back and fact-check each piece of the established narrative, it's remarkable how debatable literally all of it is. It's not clear she went to Shorrolds, there are no traces of her inside, it's not clear whether there was a 25-year-old man there or a 45-year-old, the Spanish schoolteacher disagreed with the Mr Kipper sketch, nobody who saw Mr Kipper ever ID'ed Cannan off a parade, the claim he had a BMW in 1986 is hearsay, far from not having an alibi he had one that was never checked (which isn't the same), there isn't actually any evidence that a crime took place, it is not known where or when SJL's cheque book went missing, it is not clear who she spoke to about it at the PoW, it is not clear how the police knew there was stuff of hers at the PoW, it is not clear when her car was dumped, it is not clear why the witness who saw 'a right ruck' in StR never came forward, it is not clear what the (2-person) Railway Ripper(s) were doing that day, it is not clear why the police think that future sex killer Cannan living within 4.5 miles of Fulham in one direction is an astonishing coincidence but former QE2 colleague, future sex killer and Suffolk Strangler Steve Wright living nearer to her in another direction isn't.

The police case seems to rest on the word of a snitch. I wonder what the snitch got for snitching.

 

[lee sumner]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed> I believe SLP took the keys and details to 37 shorrolds rd that day. the question is where did she go after that with MR KIPPER.

 

[Cherwell]

SJL, not SLP.
Incidentally I've wondered from the start why people on the thread don't just use SL for Suzy Lamplugh. I wasn't aware of her middle initial before. Is there another SL in the mix?

 

[lee sumner]

That being the case it leaves out the police prime suspect JC. He’s not the sort of criminal who plans, look how he was caught.

i agree. JC walking into the shop wearing a crash helmet. he would have looked proper suspicious.

 

[AfricanGrey]

I do apologise for not claryfying my post. I am not making any comment about the investigation in general. The entrenched views I was referring to are the belief that AS book (and to a lesser extent, DV’s) are factual and accurate accounts of what happened.
They may well be in parts, but also contain gross errors which mislead the reader.
In case of AS book, due to its age, it seems to be used as a work of infallible reference, not to be questioned, but there are mistakes in it which impact the interpretation.

 

[WestLondoner]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

SJL, not SLP.
Incidentally I've wondered from the start why people on the thread don't just use SL for Suzy Lamplugh. I wasn't aware of her middle initial before. Is there another SL in the mix?

The three-initial name is a way to remind one who's the victim here, I guess, if everyone else has two.

I think the SLP mistake is sometimes deliberate - a way to connect her subliminally with JC and his fake plates on SB's car.

 

[WestLondoner]

In case of AS book, due to its age, it seems to be used as a work of infallible reference, not to be questioned, but there are mistakes in it which impact the interpretation.

There are I think a couple of main reasons why AS' book is sought after and highly regarded IMO.

The first is what it alone excludes. It is not, like all other accounts since, wholly focused on asserting that JC dunnit. It predates the press' identification of JC as "Mr Kipper" by at least a year, in that IIRC it was published before JC was even arrested for SB's murder. The material relied upon by the media as evidence of JC's guilt ever since is thus wholly absent from AS' 1988 book, and all of it postdates JC being named as "probably Mr Kipper" from 1989. So AS' book tells you that much of the material that supposedly points to JC came into the investigation - and, for all we know, into existence - after he had been named.

The second reason is what it alone includes, i.e. that none of the various books, documentaries etc do, apart from DV's. Mainly, this is the catastrophic extent to which the investigation was allowed to be influenced by the Lamplugh parents' agenda. They conducted their own searches using the family dog, they interviewed people, they staged their own press conferences, they released inaccurate outdated photographs of her to the media, and they persuaded AL to give a different and quite misleading account of his relationship with her. They also tried to suppress disclosure of aspects of her personal life likely highly relevant to the mystery, but of which they disapproved. DL even rang the Home Secretary to propose a new law of libelling a dead person. DL was the proximate source for the 2000 reinvestigation. Ultimately, they were less interested in finding her body and her killer than in managing her posthumous reputation.

 

[lee sumner]

SJL, not SLP.
Incidentally I've wondered from the start why people on the thread don't just use SL for Suzy Lamplugh. I wasn't aware of her middle initial before. Is there another SL in the mix?but

correct, it is SJL, but, SLP also fits.

 

[Cherwell]

correct, it is SJL, but, SLP also fits.

No, it doesn't. Her name was Susanna Jane Lamplugh.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

correct, it is SJL, but, SLP also fits.

Sorry, I strongly disagree with your point here, not quite sure what it is really but please bear in mind this is a forum that honours the lives of the victims and respects their families and loved ones. To distort their initials is not doing that. I imagined that it was a typo or error and that's easily done and understandable.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

yes, in AS book. there is no info regarding SLP living arrangements. we know she was selling her flat, but dont know where she was planning on living. sturgis were helping her sell the flat, so they probably had some idea what she was going to

You mention a SL doc last night. What channel please so I can find it. Thanks.

Repeat of earlier Sky.