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

[Lady Stoddart-West]

@lee sumner, NB: quote from article upthread, SL was talking to her father about her purchasing plans, extensively, on last night before she went missing. Her parents only wished they had ‘taken her more seriously’. Some deal had been apparently struck between her and a Sturgis client. A joint purchase.

She had tried and fairly recently failed to sell the flat. More than once.

A new man, possibly irrelevant, but the new international, Mayfair man [source AS] had become closer when AL away. Not named in book [AS] but named in Press at time. She may have planned to see him on Sunday.

It’s interesting to note AS was asked to change/omit an inconsequential detail from his manuscript. I don’t believe this new man played any nefarious role but could the butterfly effect have played out if minor details changed?

We do know SL was on phone, apparently to pub, in a big rush ‘half sitting, half standing’ moments before leaving office, book suggests to the ‘Landlord’s wife’ [AS].

Her address/notebook/diary

Pocket sized & seemingly vitally important, CV told DV she said ‘my diary, have you got my diary’? DV also flags that others don’t remember seeing it before.

AS

He interviewed some/many of those he outlines in book, not just blindly going on police narrative. He wasn’t infallible but some of the accounts are very detailed & he was/is a stellar investigative journalist.

 

[Officer Dibble]

Repeat of earlier Sky.

Sorry Lady SW but I don't understand that. Can you elaborate? Really grateful

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

The Suzy Lamplugh Mystery

When Suzy Lamplugh disappeared without a trace in 1986, many detectives had a suspect in mind but could never prove his guilt. Fresh evidence reveals…

www.sky.com

NB: @OfficerDibble you hit on something interesting upthread, possibly. DL said ‘she [SL] didn’t live her life as I would have done’ & this lost book [SL’s] was important to her. Prostitution, I feel, extremely unlikely for all reasons expressed.

Someone was contacted, presumably from this source [lost diary] who explained he knew her as she was considering buying a car from him & another said he knew her from an expensive & fashionable Chiswick gym. It might be worth noting she was considering opening a gym/beauty venture herself: ‘Heaven’ or ‘Face Fitness’…

The police said there were too many names to follow up on so settled on only looking into some [AS].

AS tried, & later failed when he had no choice re: legal proceedings, to *keep back information he thought better suited to ‘News of the World’ & to spare her parents. It’s interesting to note how this landed in 87 & may have spooked others if involved re: anything connected, whatever it was.

*This was separate to the inconsequential detail, mentioned earlier, which the police asked AS to amend/delete.

It’s also interesting that apparently friends/family etc hadn’t recalled seeing diary before.

 

[Pinkizzy]

We should try to find the deleted information from the book.

 

[NorthParade]

We should try to find the deleted information from the book.

Forgive me if this has already been covered elsewhere, but is Andrew Stephen still alive? I can’t find anything that he’s written since 2008.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

It’s interesting in her early review of the AS book, Brookner refers to the items being lost in the POW, the night before, ie: Sunday.

Brookner was known for her accuracy, if she was working from an early, potentially unchanged copy, that might explain her mistake.

Equally possible, the small change was unimportant & Brookner made an error.

What AS kept back was never put into his book.

 

[WestLondoner]

Other than it was 'Screws of the World' material did he ever say what it was?

DL would have likely regarded her daughter as a slapper if she'd slept with one bloke, but this AS comment sounds like it might be about this area and like we might be talking a lot more than one.

If so, the police decision to give up inquiring into the contacts in the diary makes more sense. What if there were 300, for example?

It is also interesting that there was no way of working out who the diary belonged to - CV said there was no name / contact number in it. Who keeps a key diary with important contacts in it, but leaves no information in it that would allow someone to reunite you with it if you lost it?

 

[WestLondoner]

It’s interesting in her early review of the AS book, Brookner refers to the items being lost in the POW, the night before, ie: Sunday.

If you don't believe CV had anything to do with SJL's disappearance, there is no reason to doubt he found the diary on the Sunday, as he has said then and since. So how did her stuff not appear at the PoW until Sunday if it was lost on Friday? Why did AL say he was with SJL at the PoW on Friday then later deny they'd ever been there at all and were in fact at Mossop's and it was Sunday? Why did he say they spoke on the phone on Sunday if they were in fact at Mossop's?

I reckon she was at the PoW to use the payphone for a conversation she didn't want to have in her flat, either because Roger the Lodger or for some other reason.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

If you don't believe CV had anything to do with SJL's disappearance, there is no reason to doubt he found the diary on the Sunday, as he has said then and since. So how did her stuff not appear at the PoW until Sunday if it was lost on Friday? Why did AL say he was with SJL at the PoW on Friday then later deny they'd ever been there at all and were in fact at Mossop's and it was Sunday? Why did he say they spoke on the phone on Sunday if they were in fact at Mossop's?

I reckon she was at the PoW to use the payphone for a conversation she didn't want to have in her flat, either because Roger the Lodger or for some other reason.

AL suggests they were in the POW in a doc that was all about JC clearly being culpable, the police were/are convinced & JC being named as ‘only suspect’ is/was most unusual & significant. I think you have to view AL’s comments in that light.

AL apparently wasn’t at the Saturday 21st as her plus one & she’d told others she wanted to break up. The Sunday phone call apparently about the Tues party and logistics therein. Odd possibly, as both AL & SL familiar with the flat & the man a friend of both.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Other than it was 'Screws of the World' material did he ever say what it was?

DL would have likely regarded her daughter as a slapper if she'd slept with one bloke, but this AS comment sounds like it might be about this area and like we might be talking a lot more than one.

If so, the police decision to give up inquiring into the contacts in the diary makes more sense. What if there were 300, for example?

It is also interesting that there was no way of working out who the diary belonged to - CV said there was no name / contact number in it. Who keeps a key diary with important contacts in it, but leaves no information in it that would allow someone to reunite you with it if you lost it?

I think it might well have been possible to repatriate the diary (I’ve done so before by detective work & ringing around, but maybe CV cut to chase by calling her bank). (chequebook with diary).

The police gave up halfway through checking out the owners of the very definitive BMW seem in Shorrolds too, age/class etc, lack of resources I think.

IMO what was ‘kept back’ & the diary didn’t point directly to numerous lovers.

AS didn’t give any specific details.

 

[Terryb808]

The police were lax at the time and (maybe the lack of resources is responsible) started lengthy enquiries, then just gave up.

When you look at other cases that have been solved (against the odds) it’s only happened because the officer in charge took a single minded approach and didn’t give up.

We seem to focus on the loss of the diary (Friday / Sunday), this is IMO only important if it had a butterfly effect.

There’s no evidence that JC took the diary in the PoW on Friday evening. What is odd is that AL changed his story when he was interviewed by DV. At this point DV had not released his book, so AL couldn’t have know that DV believed SJL was murdered in the PoW.

It’s possible that all those closely involved are 100% behind the police narrative. DV departing from this when he interviewed AL results in his abrupt response.
That might also explain is rather odd comment “ You’ll never find her, no one will”.

If I could ask AL one question it would be to clarify this statement.

Regards to what AS withheld, his content that covers her time on the QE2 is certainly not what DL would have approved of.
So if this made it into the book, you have to ask yourself what the withheld content must have been.

After all this time it’s surprising that this withheld material has not come to light.

 

[Pinkizzy]

I'm interested in DVs next bombshell. Is he gonna expose the identity of the killer now or later?

 

[Terryb808]

I'm interested in DVs next bombshell. Is he gonna expose the identity of the killer now or later?

Without irrefutable proof I can’t see how he can do this.

 

[WestLondoner]

AL suggests they were in the POW in a doc that was all about JC clearly being culpable, the police were/are convinced & JC being named as ‘only suspect’ is/was most unusual & significant. I think you have to view AL’s comments in that light.

AL apparently wasn’t at the Saturday 21st as her plus one & she’d told others she wanted to break up. The Sunday phone call apparently about the Tues party and logistics therein. Odd possibly, as both AL & SL familiar with the flat & the man a friend of both.

AL's role in this as a muddier-of-the-waters is quite pronounced I think. If we assume CV is clean and is reliable when he said he found the stuff on the Sunday, then one of AL's accounts can't be true because he gave two that differ, one to the documentary and another to DV. He told the plod he has SJL had a good relationship but she wanted to end it and pointedly gave him the cold shoulder all weekend. This is notable on the Sunday when he followed her to the coast and she then went back to town without him. I don't get how they were speaking on the phone on Sunday night about some event on Tuesday when they had had all day Sunday to do that.

 

[WestLondoner]

I'm interested in DVs next bombshell. Is he gonna expose the identity of the killer now or later?

He apparently thinks it's CV given how he's depicted in the book, but unless he's managed to assemble a load of undisclosed material implicating CV in other similar offences later, I don't see how he has any case against him.

All he has is the possibility that a body could in theory be hidden at or near the PoW. For this to be so, he'd need to show there was nobody there but CV that lunchtime, i.e. the pub was closed and Mrs CV had left the building. While that's possible, it is not at all clear to me from his book that this was in fact the case. The PoW feels like somewhere that ought to have been searched in 1986 and never was, but maybe the police who went there that evening bottomed this out at the time. If they'd asked CV "How much did you take at lunchtime?" and he showed them the afternoon's takings, that would have told them right away that the pub was open, hence no opportunity to kill someone and hide a body.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Without irrefutable proof I can’t see how he can do this.

I guess its a prompt for regular customers from 1986 to come forward with their stories

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

AL's role in this as a muddier-of-the-waters is quite pronounced I think. If we assume CV is clean and is reliable when he said he found the stuff on the Sunday, then one of AL's accounts can't be true because he gave two that differ, one to the documentary and another to DV. He told the plod he has SJL had a good relationship but she wanted to end it and pointedly gave him the cold shoulder all weekend. This is notable on the Sunday when he followed her to the coast and she then went back to town without him. I don't get how they were speaking on the phone on Sunday night about some event on Tuesday when they had had all day Sunday to do that.

He apparently thinks it's CV given how he's depicted in the book, but unless he's managed to assemble a load of undisclosed material implicating CV in other similar offences later, I don't see how he has any case against him.

All he has is the possibility that a body could in theory be hidden at or near the PoW. For this to be so, he'd need to show there was nobody there but CV that lunchtime, i.e. the pub was closed and Mrs CV had left the building. While that's possible, it is not at all clear to me from his book that this was in fact the case. The PoW feels like somewhere that ought to have been searched in 1986 and never was, but maybe the police who went there that evening bottomed this out at the time. If they'd asked CV "How much did you take at lunchtime?" and he showed them the afternoon's takings, that would have told them right away that the pub was open, hence no opportunity to kill someone and hide a body.

DV seemed even to think an arrest was likely, CV, so surely he must have much more he can’t disclose? He presented quite a lot to the police. An additional issue seemed to be many on team seemed unaware of earlier, pre 2000 detail. All irrelevant if JC of course.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

The police were lax at the time and (maybe the lack of resources is responsible) started lengthy enquiries, then just gave up.

When you look at other cases that have been solved (against the odds) it’s only happened because the officer in charge took a single minded approach and didn’t give up.

We seem to focus on the loss of the diary (Friday / Sunday), this is IMO only important if it had a butterfly effect.

There’s no evidence that JC took the diary in the PoW on Friday evening. What is odd is that AL changed his story when he was interviewed by DV. At this point DV had not released his book, so AL couldn’t have know that DV believed SJL was murdered in the PoW.

It’s possible that all those closely involved are 100% behind the police narrative. DV departing from this when he interviewed AL results in his abrupt response.
That might also explain is rather odd comment “ You’ll never find her, no one will”.

If I could ask AL one question it would be to clarify this statement.

Regards to what AS withheld, his content that covers her time on the QE2 is certainly not what DL would have approved of.
So if this made it into the book, you have to ask yourself what the withheld content must have been.

After all this time it’s surprising that this withheld material has not come to light.

I wonder if it was this unfortunate disclosure that meant the Ls issued NDAs? It might explain why some distanced selves from 87.

 

[WestLondoner]

DV seemed even to think an arrest was likely, CV, so surely he must have much more he can’t disclose? He presented quite a lot to the police. An additional issue seemed to be many on team seemed unaware of earlier, pre 2000 detail. All irrelevant if JC of course.

One struggles to imagine what's in his dossier unless it's background on CV. It wouldn't take many pages to set out why the PoW is important so something else must be padding it out.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

One struggles to imagine what's in his dossier unless it's background on CV. It wouldn't take many pages to set out why the PoW is important so something else must be padding it out.

What was your/others interpretation of ND, the witness, that DV tracked down? I noted also that there as an Irish man who worked as a cellar man in the POW, separate from ND. [DV]. ND episode, P.157 DV:

'He'd [ND] remembered the house as it was one he particularly liked' [NB: photos of it at time, run down, of course may have spotted potential etc, but aesthetically on the face of it?].

'ND wasn't his real name, it couldn't be, he'd used an alias' [DV]

'He described the woman as clutching a set of keys in her right hand on a large yellow tag and looking out toward the street'. [DV]

'Why was his account of events such a perfect fit for their [the police's] ...story' P.159, DV

If ND saw SL holding the keys on a bright, yellow, large fob he's a very important witness indeed.