UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #7

[greenwoodlad]

But if you lived where the car was found you would not really have to worry, just search for what you mislaid and wheel the car out, and aldo find it odd 2 women can get their story so wrong

Am I right in thinking the only real witness to say the car was parked there in Stevenage Rd at 12.45 was the lady living opposite where it was left on Stevenage Rd - who's house also happened to be for sale with Sturgis ...so if for what ever reason she was lying ? then it may not have been parked there until later in the day

 

[Ljh21]

Then why take your chequebook and postcard if just making a call

And can anyone shed some light on who the postcard was from or was it just clever thinking from the murderer to leave the 3 items as the landlord would have name (bankbook) and address (postcard), but then why not go and post them through her door as it is one street away but call the bank , in my view a big red flag there

 

[greenwoodlad]

Yup. Wasn't a genuine Sturgis contact as there was no record of him, and an EA was not going to waltz off and start showing houses to someone who had just rocked up, and who might be a timewaster without a bean to spend on a house.

So, perhaps a personal contact of SL's? - yet one whose contact details were never found in any diary. So we have no idea how she knew him or how she thought she could contact him. It's hard to see how a day-release lag like Cannan could have faked up a phone number so as to be contactable (I don't say it's impossible, just that it was hard. Maybe he gave out Superhire's phone number and got someone there to take messages?). So if a personal contact, one whom she couldn't actually contact. Very rum. The only thing I can think of that might explain that is if this was someone who had made advances to her but claimed to be "married and therefore you can never phone me". Cannan had actually been married and had a kid. So although this wasn't in fact why she couldn't call him, it's something he might have used to avoid giving her any number.

The train of thought some then proceed to is that given he can't have been a real Sturgis client or a personal contact of SJL's, he didn't exist, therefore there was no "12.45 37 Shorrolds O/S", and he was just a fake name prompted by the nearest set of For Sale particulars to her desk and her mate Herring, aka Kipper, who lived in that road.

Exactly as you say , so she invented Mr Kipper and the 12.45 37 Shorrolds O/S entries ....to allow her to leave the office ...but then what about the witnesses who saw her at 37 Shorrolds ? can 3 witnesses all be wrong / confused / lying?

 

[WestLondoner]

The times of the supposed sightings outside 123SR and 37SR were inferred, as was SJL's departure from the office. So it's just about possible that if they're out by a few minutes in the right direction, they're all correct. Ish.

Personally I am a bit sceptical of all of them. A school pupil on holiday reckons he saw the car at midday. This cannot have been SJL's car that early. So he saw a different but similar vehicle and hence so probably did WJ.

HR's story is unstable and he never really clocked the woman. The later alleged sightings at 37SR came in after his had been publicised, so may have been influenced by it. One was so vague as to time that the witness, ND, could have been remembering MG's visit at 3.45. MG looks as much like the photofit as Cannan IMO.

BW seems likeliest to be reliable but cannot be right if WJ's account is accurate.

Personally I would be surprised if Kipper took SJL to another Sturgis property to attack her. It would be too obvious a place to look for her.

 

[greenwoodlad]

or of course that one of her colleagues did the nonsensical diary entry...
MOO

That's a good point ....were the police certain it was Suzy's handwriting for that entry in her diary ? could someone else at Sturgis be involved in her disappearance....or creating a smoke screen ? that diary entry was what the whole investigation was built on

 

[Ljh21]

It is an obvious precaution because she would not know if someone had already made use of it.
And her initials are SJL not SLP.

Her initials are SJL not SLP.

It's unlikely that a specific appointment was made for 6 pm. That is when the pub opened, so it would have been understood that she needed to come after 6 pm, ie any time during opening hours. Six o'clock would have been mentioned, but not as a fixed time; there would be no need for that.

I don't follow your reasoning about the calls to the bank. It's natural that both the loser and the finder would call the bank about the chequebook. Where is the "false statement"?

Ok they had her postcard (address) bankbook(name) why not drop it off one street away anytime over the weekend

 

[WestLondoner]

A possibility is that Kipper was the person who had been leaning on her having previously beien a married potential bedmate. He's uncontainable because married. Then he phones up and says can we meet, and she says yes intending thst he will be formally, finally and unambiguously TTFO. This personal errand was no tryst because if it were, she'd have taken a hairbrush etc to look her best. So it was not to be that sort of meeting. Kipper takes unkindly to being TTFO and it descends violently from there.

 

[Ljh21]

That's a good point ....were the police certain it was Suzy's handwriting for that entry in her diary ? could someone else at Sturgis be involved in her disappearance....or creating a smoke screen ? that diary entry was what the whole investigation was built on

Noting the address was written in pencil, i could erase 123 and put in 37 causing a search and effort at the wrong location

 

[greenwoodlad]

Noting the address was written in pencil, i could erase 123 and put in 37 causing a search and effort at the wrong location

Exactly and as I said I feel Stevenage Rd is very significant and the witness on Stevenage Rd who's home was for sale by Sturgis also being the key witness that claims her car was parked there at 12.45....something there I feel

 

[Ljh21]

Noting the address was written in pencil, i could erase 123 and put in 37 causing a search and effort at the wrong location

I think the meeting was with a work colleague at another one of the for sale addresses then knowing that 37 was her entry and leaving the car at 123 muddied the waters so to speak, so what other sturgis properties were for sale and if true she is probably at the said address or the one for sale

 

[Ljh21]

How did she find out that her diary was also at the POW? Did she simply assume that, after finding out her chequebook was there too?

And so more urgency to recover the items, i still ask why pow staff could not have posted through her door one street away as they had her address (postcard) and name (chequebook) and by accounts she frequented the pub.

 

[WestLondoner]

Ok they had her postcard (address) bankbook(name) why not drop it off one street away anytime over the weekend

This assumes the postcard was addressed to her. It might have been one she bought and had not yet filled in.

 

[greenwoodlad]

I think the meeting was with a work colleague at another one of the for sale addresses then knowing that 37 was her entry and leaving the car at 123 muddied the waters so to speak, so what other sturgis properties were for sale and if true she is probably at the said address or the one for sale

I think you have something . that's a good theory.

 

[WestLondoner]

Noting the address was written in pencil, i could erase 123 and put in 37 causing a search and effort at the wrong location

She wrote 37 Shorrolds, so if someone did that, they'd have to alter more than just a house number. Also, the entry would have to be in pencil rather than ink to be erasable. And if you wanted to lay a false trail why not erase the entry altogether?

 

[Ljh21]

This assumes the postcard was addressed to her. It might have been one she bought and had not yet filled in.

Oh to have the detail

 

[Ljh21]

This assumes the postcard was addressed to her. It might have been one she bought and had not yet filled in.

Assumed it was al postcard

 

[Cherwell]

Then why take your chequebook and postcard if just making a call

Using my imagination, I see her getting out her chequebook and pocket diary to check something while waiting for the phone to be free. Multi-tasking.

And can anyone shed some light on who the postcard was from or was it just clever thinking from the murderer to leave the 3 items as the landlord would have name (bankbook) and address (postcard), but then why not go and post them through her door as it is one street away but call the bank , in my view a big red flag there

The postcard was probably just used as a bookmark. I doubt that her address was in the notebook and it certainly wouldn't have been on the chequebook, so the landlord wouldn't have known where she lived. Calling the bank was the obvious thing to do.

 

[Ljh21]

Using my imagination, I see her getting out her chequebook and pocket diary to check something while waiting for the phone to be free. Multi-tasking.

The postcard was probably just used as a bookmark. I doubt that her address was in the notebook and it certainly wouldn't have been on the chequebook, so the landlord wouldn't have known where she lived. Calling the bank was the obvious thing to do.

It would be good to know the address on said postcard to rule it out, does anyone know the date of the first time the jogger reported his sighting ?
(That would be when first being disregarded by police because he described a blond woman)

 

[Ljh21]

Hi Kasparthecat

Welcome to the thread.

You're right to question this sort of detail. It is one of those things that gets cemented into the narrative but probably shouldn't.

SJL was 5-6 and Kipper was described as 5-8, as is John Cannan. If they are the same person he would not have needed to move the seat at all from her preferred position to drive the car, so the fact it was moved suggests this was not done to enable anyone of Cannan's height to drive. It would be helpful to have known if SJL was in the same habit as you of moving the seat to get out.

The guess I favour is that she drove the car there alone and parked in sloppy way intending to be out of there again in a few seconds - the passenger door was locked and her purse in the door pocket. Someone else may have returned to the car later to remove items that may have indicated where she had been. This would explain the disappearance of the property particulars.

 

[Ljh21]

I hadn't considered the possibility of someone else returning to the car to remove property particulars and perhaps the key, if indeed she'd taken it with her. Perhaps they were on the passenger seat. That someone could well have missed the purse, tucked away in the map pocket.

I'm also of the opinion that Suzy drove herself to Stevenage Road and was alone.

can anyone confirm the number of people in the office when sjl left ? As i am struggling to get past that, if we rule out pow because she never picked up her items and assume she went to 123 can anyone tell me which way the car was facing at stevenage road?