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

[Salah11]

Agreed, SJL was adventurous and it does seem a much easier (if risky) was to make money on the side.
The question is did her possibly involvement in the drug trade result in her death.
Like all the possibilities in this case, there’s no evidence to support this scenario.

That’s the issue there is not evidence of anything much in this case. If it’s not JC it’s basically unsolvable imo

 

[Cherwell]

I think it's an important point. If she were contacted by the bank midmorning and spoke to the pub to arrange a pickup, she'd have had to call back to rearrange this when the request for a 6pm viewing came in. If that 6pm viewing appointment already existed before she spoke to the pub, then we know she never intended to go there at 6pm at all. In the latter case she presumably intended to go at lunchtime all along.

CV's account at the time was that she was to come that evening and never turned up. He could not then have known she wasn't in a position to come over that evening, in which case when did she really arrange to come, and what happened to her? This could be why, a year later, he became vague about the time and introduced new information about supposed phone calls.

Of course this is MOO and there are other explanations for CV's accounts, but this must be part of DV's thinking.

I've said it before, but there would be no reason for an appointment at any specific time. It wouldn't matter to the landlord or staff, they would just hand her the items when she turned up.
All she needed to do was call at the pub at any time during opening hours. That would have been after six o'clock that evening, and that's where the "6 pm" comes from.
She could easily have popped in on her way home after the viewing appointment, or even later since she lived only about 200m from the pub.

 

[WestLondoner]

It is frustratingly unclear how many calls there were between SJL and the PoW. The sequence appears to be that the PoW called the bank called SJL called the PoW. Some accounts say there was a second call; this can only have been to change the time of the pickup. If the original arrangement was at 6pm or thereafter, and the later viewing derailed this, all she'd have needed to do would be turn up at 7pm instead, as Cherwell points out. So any second call must have been to propose a material change.

The reason you might call ahead is to make sure the person you just spoke to about your lost property will be there at the new time you're about to suggest. Nobody was going to clock on for work at 6pm, but be gone by 7pm leaving SJL to be met by nobody who knew about any lost property. That makes no sense. If you were going to be there at 6 but you showed at 7 it's no big deal because the same pub staff would all there anyway. SJL just turns up and says Hi, sorry, running behind because something came up.

This leads you to think that, if there was a second call, it was for SJL to organise a substantially different time to 6pm; like, right now. She'd check to make sure there was anyone there right then. There'd be no need for such a call otherwise.

I infer DV thinks this amounts to a hole in CV's story. CV said she was going to come over "later". The pub would be closed from 2 to 6pm, and the diary says she had to be elsewhere at 6. Her mother's 30/7/86 interview suggests she was playing tennis afterwards (we don't know where or with whom). This doesn't leave very much of "later" for her to fetch the diary. So did she really make that 6pm arrangement? If she did, she would certainly have had to change it when the 6pm viewing request comes in, clearly to "right now", because this wipes put her free-ish slot that evening.

So why was CV silent on this? Did his story change because he realised a year later that saying she was expected "later" no longer worked when her other intended movements were known? Did she need the diary back fast because it contained numbers she needed to call that afternoon?

Overthinking this is as bad as underthinking it. The alternative narrative is that CV just misremembered what had happened, there was no tennis because SJL edited her life heavily for her mother's consumption, there was no second phone call, etc.

But it still leaves a nagging doubt. If there's no significance to the PoW visit why does it look like CV's story changed, why did AL's story change, and how did property possibly lost somewhere else entirely on the Friday come to be found only two days later at the PoW?

 

[Salah11]

Why would Suzy risk getting in trouble at work to pick up something that she could do on the way home? It’s a Pub and would of been open until late

It simply doesn’t make add up imo

 

[lee sumner]

Why would Suzy risk getting in trouble at work to pick up something that she could do on the way home? It’s a Pub and would of been open until late

It simply doesn’t make add up imo

that is what i thought. she would just pick up her items after work on the way home. she was not in a rush to get there.

 

[Woodburnbay]

i think there was hair straightners missing from claudia home. did she stay out with a mystery lover.

There was discussion that these could have been removed as the cord could have been the murder weapon.-Nothing substantiated.

 

[WestLondoner]

that is what i thought. she would just pick up her items after work on the way home. she was not in a rush to get there.

We don't know that. For all we know there was an important contact in the diary she needed to speak to before that evening. We don't know whether it was urgent to her or not.

 

[Salah11]

We don't know that. For all we know there was an important contact in the diary she needed to speak to before that evening. We don't know whether it was urgent to her or not.

So then why wouldn’t she speak to her boss and do the errand instead of making up a completely fake house showing?

It’s way to convoluted IMO

 

[Terryb808]

We don't know that. For all we know there was an important contact in the diary she needed to speak to before that evening. We don't know whether it was urgent to her or not.

Essentially, if SJL went to the PoW she didn’t go anywhere else. You can base this on CV’s story that she was supposed to be there at 6.00pm and didn’t turn up.
DV’s complete scenario is based on this assumption. This is IMO is the only reason the diary is important, not necessarily for its contents.
AL changing his story could simply be because DL pressured him into a lie or after all this time he simply forgot what he originally said.
The question is, do you believe DV, if you do, then SJL died in the PoW, possibly in the cellar.

 

[Salah11]

The problem with the pub is you then to exclude every other bit of evidence from that day. It doesn’t add up at all that she made the pub imo

 

[lee sumner]

There was discussion that these could have been removed as the cord could have been the murder weapon.-Nothing substantiated.

would claudia take hair straightners to work. iam just thinking did she take them to the campus.

 

[lee sumner]

Essentially, if SJL went to the PoW she didn’t go anywhere else. You can base this on CV’s story that she was supposed to be there at 6.00pm and didn’t turn up.
DV’s complete scenario is based on this assumption. This is IMO is the only reason the diary is important, not necessarily for its contents.
AL changing his story could simply be because DL pressured him into a lie or after all this time he simply forgot what he originally said.
The question is, do you believe DV, if you do, then SJL died in the PoW, possibly in the cellar.

i think DV theory is insane. i was really surprised he would come up with a such a story. occams razor does not seem to apply to DV. like you say, he makes assumptions.

 

[lee sumner]

Maybe she wasn't going to sell but wanted shot of the lodger and it was an excuse?

Or maybe her parents had said to her 'you're over-extending yourself with all these expenses' and she made an excuse that she's going to sell her property and downsize if push comes to shove.

Maybe she had her heart set on a way more fancy and expensive location and couldn't get the mortgage lending without selling her current property in order to have a hefty deposit but all the same, more evidence she was making grand plans and playing with big money, not downsizing or being forced to sell. Also, anyone in estate agency knows that's not the way to go about things.

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 do.

 

[Terryb808]

Essentially, if SJL went to the PoW she didn’t go anywhere else. You can base this on CV’s story that she was supposed to be there at 6.00pm and didn’t turn up.
DV’s complete scenario is based on this assumption. This is IMO is the only reason the diary is important, not necessarily for its contents.
AL changing his story could simply be because DL pressured him into a lie or after all this time he simply forgot what he originally said.
The question is, do you believe DV, if you do, then SJL died in the PoW, possibly in the cellar.

I’m not saying DV is correct, just pointing out what his scenario entails.
It’s Black & White, either correct or completely wrong.
On the flip side, she never went to the PoW and CV is telling the truth, so who were the two callers on that Monday afternoon?

 

[Pinkizzy]

I’m not saying DV is correct, just pointing out what his scenario entails.
It’s Black & White, either correct or completely wrong.
On the flip side, she never went to the PoW and CV is telling the truth, so who were the two callers on that Monday afternoon?

DL was one of the callers to the pub IMO. She visited the witness on Shorrolds Rd (Harry Riglin) and probably called CV.

 

[Cherwell]

Is there any definite proof that Suzy rang the pub a second time? eg someone in the office overhearing the call?

 

[Terryb808]

Is there any definite proof that Suzy rang the pub a second time? eg someone in the office overhearing the call?

The very last call (if I’m remembering correctly) was an incoming one. So someone called her just before she left.
I know from a previous post that it was not a simple job getting phone records. However, this was a high profile case at the time and I’d have thought it would have been essential to get the call log.
Whoever made this last call could just have been SJL’s killer.

 

[RichardKimble]

The very last call (if I’m remembering correctly) was an incoming one. So someone called her just before she left.
I know from a previous post that it was not a simple job getting phone records. However, this was a high profile case at the time and I’d have thought it would have been essential to get the call log.
Whoever made this last call could just have been SJL’s killer.

If the call came from a phone box, no telling who made it.

 

[WestLondoner]

If I'm not mistaken, itemised billing was something you then had to opt for and switch on, so as to capture the information at the time. You couldn't apply it retrospectively.

In 1988 I had a landline installed to a flat in London, and BT's first bill for a month of use was a ludicrous £1,000. I said it shouldn't be more than £30 and who were all these alleged calls to? Although not itemised, surely they would know? They said they could not now find out (in the end they waived the £1,000, charged me £30 and my bill was indeed never more than that thereafter...I never did find out what had happened).

It may be that if Sturgis were not on itemised 'phone bills, the crucial information as to who had called SJL's line was simply not available after the fact in 1986.

 

[WestLondoner]

i think DV theory is insane. i was really surprised he would come up with a such a story. occams razor does not seem to apply to DV. like you say, he makes assumptions.

I wouldn't say insane. He's reasoned his way by elimination to an unexpected conclusion.

There appear to be maybe four or five places SJL might plausibly have been heading when she left the office. One was 37SR, another is 123SR, a third is home because maybe she felt ill, another was her mother's don't know why, and the last is the PoW to which she needed and had arranged to run an errand.

DV reckons he can eliminate 37SR because she was never ID'd there and didn't take the keys*, 123SR because it was searched, home because it was searched, her mother's because she hadn't seen her. This leaves only the PoW, which was never searched nor did the police ask for witnesses to come forward if they'd seen her there. Within 20 hours of SJL being reported missing, the police had told the TV and press that she'd been seen outside 37SR, which would have dissuaded any witness who thought she was there from coming forward. A witness who knew SJL and thought she'd seen her in the FPR at 2.30 found her sighting dismissed, because it was incompatible with the now-established 37SR narrative.

For her to have died at the PoW requires a number of quite large suppositions, such as that the pub was empty but for CV, he killed her on sight, he hid her body initially at least in the cellar, he dumped her car, he then behaved normally thereafter and he possibly moved her body to somewhere else later, all without anyone noticing anything odd or off about him.

On the other hand, we also don't know what else DV may have surfaced about CV or the PoW on that day that might support this theory.

Both the CV and JC theories appear to rely substantially on reasoning that's not actually public.

* and further, possibly, because it has never been confirmed that her or Cannan's fingerprints were actually found there