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

[lee sumner]

I wouldn't go that far. He's essentially saying that there are only so many places SJL is known to have been heading - home, her mother's, 37SR, 123SR, or the PoW. The latter is, very oddly, the only one that was never searched, and about which some rather peculiar anomalies have arisen.

I don't buy his theory because
1/ he hasn't shown the pub was empty or closed
2/ he hasn't given any motive for why someone there would spontaneously kill her
3/ an accident makes little sense, because why would you cover it up if it was an innocent accident?
4/ hiding her body under the floor totally incriminates the 1986 temporary manager whenever she is found
5/ the floor in question was taken up and relaid a few years later, and nobody noticed any estate agents under there
6/ if for argument's sake you allow 1 to 3, the better place to hide a body would be behind the pub on the railway embankment, i.e. a place that does not link her only to your own pub
7/ the timing of getting rid of her car requires it to have arrived opposite 123SR no earlier than about 1.30, but witnesses saw it there much earlier
8/ it doesn't satisfactorily address the BW sighting of SJL still alive at 2.45.

He's right to bring this up IMO.

the detectives working the case should have searched the POW, as we know SL was planning on going there, but there is no evidence to say she changed her mind and went there before 6pm. the landlord hardly knows the pub as he only started working there recently, but DV wants us to believe KH killed SL there, and buried her remains there.

 

[WestLondoner]

The temporary landlord and his partner had done twelve weeks' training at the PoW with MH, the permanent landlord, earlier that year. They were brought back to fill in expressly because, as he told DV,

‘When I was on holiday, I always insisted that the people I’d trained at my pub do my relief work. Those were the ones that ran my pub when I wasn’t there. Because they knew how I ran it. They knew the customers, the staff...'

So while KH had only just arrived back, it is not correct that he hardly knew the pub. Having lived in the area for three recent months he knew it quite well. SJL was likely a regular, so KH may have known her by sight if not name from his previous stint there.

I say 'likely' a regular because the PoW was en route to her parents' house and was the nearest pub. According to NB, the landlord before MH, it had been refurbished in late 1984. So when SJL arrived in the area, it would still have been quite spruce. AL initially claimed her stuff was lost there on the Friday night, while later claiming never to have been there at all, so this says she did at least occasionally go. MH on the other hand did not recognise her as a regular.

It is hence possible but not proven that KH had met SJL before 28/7.

This is not enough to hang an accusation on. The main issue is why did they get the stocktake done by 12 if they didn't intend to open normally at lunchtime; and if they were open, when exactly was KH's opportunity to kill and hide her? Even if the pub was empty of punters it wasn't completely empty - even when shut, pubs never are. There is food being prepared, areas to clean, and so on - all this happens while closed.

There are some really odd things about the pub aspect of this but it's a big reach to make it a crime scene.

 

[lee sumner]

The temporary landlord and his partner had done twelve weeks' training at the PoW with MH, the permanent landlord, earlier that year. They were brought back to fill in expressly because, as he told DV,

‘When I was on holiday, I always insisted that the people I’d trained at my pub do my relief work. Those were the ones that ran my pub when I wasn’t there. Because they knew how I ran it. They knew the customers, the staff...'

So while KH had only just arrived back, it is not correct that he hardly knew the pub. Having lived in the area for three recent months he knew it quite well. SJL was likely a regular, so KH may have known her by sight if not name from his previous stint there.

I say 'likely' a regular because the PoW was en route to her parents' house and was the nearest pub. According to NB, the landlord before MH, it had been refurbished in late 1984. So when SJL arrived in the area, it would still have been quite spruce. AL initially claimed her stuff was lost there on the Friday night, while later claiming never to have been there at all, so this says she did at least occasionally go. MH on the other hand did not recognise her as a regular.

It is hence possible but not proven that KH had met SJL before 28/7.

This is not enough to hang an accusation on. The main issue is why did they get the stocktake done by 12 if they didn't intend to open normally at lunchtime; and if they were open, when exactly was KH's opportunity to kill and hide her? Even if the pub was empty of punters it wasn't completely empty - even when shut, pubs never are. There is food being prepared, areas to clean, and so on - all this happens while closed.

There are some really odd things about the pub aspect of this but it's a big reach to make it a crime scene.

i thought SL did not drink in the POW. if it was a regular pub she went to then that is interesting info.

 

[WestLondoner]

i thought SL did not drink in the POW. if it was a regular pub she went to then that is interesting info.

AL's account, given in a documentary, was that he and SJL went to the PoW on Friday 25th and had a pleasant evening marred only by the theft of her diary and chequebook. That's actually not true. First, someone handed them in, so not stolen, and second, he says Friday but KH says he found them - and he didn't get there till Sunday. KH reckons he found the stuff under the outside table next to the phone boxes at closing time. AS reckons she was home with NB by then, so the timing works.

We know from AS that he agreed to edit something "unimportant" from his book at DL/PL request. Some have wondered if this was the unimportant thing that was edited. Perhaps he did not have a nice Friday with SJL because she dumped him, because she was four-timing him, a detail the Ls would certainly have wanted suppressed. Hence, perhaps her only visit to the PoW was on Sunday, when she either stopped there to make a phone call, perhaps to Mr Kipper, or was with someone else.

Speculation but there are so many gaps in the pub story / details it's hard not to.

 

[lee sumner]

AL's account, given in a documentary, was that he and SJL went to the PoW on Friday 25th and had a pleasant evening marred only by the theft of her diary and chequebook. That's actually not true. First, someone handed them in, so not stolen, and second, he says Friday but KH says he found them - and he didn't get there till Sunday. KH reckons he found the stuff under the outside table next to the phone boxes at closing time. AS reckons she was home with NB by then, so the timing works.

We know from AS that he agreed to edit something "unimportant" from his book at DL/PL request. Some have wondered if this was the unimportant thing that was edited. Perhaps he did not have a nice Friday with SJL because she dumped him, because she was four-timing him, a detail the Ls would certainly have wanted suppressed. Hence, perhaps her only visit to the PoW was on Sunday, when she either stopped there to make a phone call, perhaps to Mr Kipper, or was with someone else.

Speculation but there are so many gaps in the pub story / details it's hard not to.

yes, i seen the interview he did in 2002. i wonder if SL finished with AL on the friday night they went out. if so that is not a pleasent evening. she didnt invite him to the 21st party in capel dorking on the saturday, so you do wonder if she ditched him.

 

[WestLondoner]

I am sure she did. She ignored him all week end and in the last photo of her she is sitting on someone's knee.

 

[lee sumner]

I am sure she did. She ignored him all week end and in the last photo of her she is sitting on someone's knee.

SL also made her own way back to london on the sunday when she was in worthing. as you probably already know AL turned up for the windsurfing on that sunday, and you would expect SL and AL to make there way back to london together to do some catching up, but AL appears to have gone back to london alone.

 

[Markybug]

Couple of niggles that i have not seen explained?

1. The landlord of the pub which Suzy was due to visit at 6pm on the day she disappeared to pick up her lost diary, cheque book and postcard, reported that he had received a phone call from somebody calling herself 'Sarah' on the afternoon of that day, before Suzy's disappearance had been discovered. She left a message for Suzy to call her and a phone number. The landlord said that the phone call was followed by another from a man saying he was a police officer. But, once again, this was before Suzy had been reported missing! The landlord said he had given the telephone number from 'Sarah' to the police, but the police had never received it.

2. The discovery of an abandoned BMW, which turned out to be owned by a Mr Kiper in Belgium, seemed like a major breakthrough.

 

[wtiger]

the telephone caller to the pub was NOT a police officer but was someone pretending to be one

 

[Markybug]

the telephone caller to the pub was NOT a police officer but was someone pretending to be one

Yes i think the police said they had no knowledge of someone allegedly from the police calling the pub ?

 

[lee sumner]

Couple of niggles that i have not seen explained?

1. The landlord of the pub which Suzy was due to visit at 6pm on the day she disappeared to pick up her lost diary, cheque book and postcard, reported that he had received a phone call from somebody calling herself 'Sarah' on the afternoon of that day, before Suzy's disappearance had been discovered. She left a message for Suzy to call her and a phone number. The landlord said that the phone call was followed by another from a man saying he was a police officer. But, once again, this was before Suzy had been reported missing! The landlord said he had given the telephone number from 'Sarah' to the police, but the police had never received it.

2. The discovery of an abandoned BMW, which turned out to be owned by a Mr Kiper in Belgium, seemed like a major breakthrough.

i think the landlord KH made up that story about getting that phone call from a sarah asking about suzy. SL did not even know the landlord, so his story makes no sense, and the rest of his story is very strange. the phone call from a man saying he was a police officer, then giving the phone number to the police. i think he was looking for attention. a walter mitty character.

 

[lee sumner]

the telephone caller to the pub was NOT a police officer but was someone pretending to be one

or he just made up the story looking for attention. all major cases attract the nutters.

 

[WestLondoner]

AIUI there are three possible explanations for KH's story [edited].

One is that he confused his days. Someone told the police SJL had been meaning to go get her diary. We don't know who that was, but clearly the intended errand was known about in the Sturgis office. The police seem to have gone over there to fetch it that evening. They also showed up at the office the next day in case SJL did. It's thus possible that they rang the pub the next day with the same in mind - did she ever turn up for the diary? Innocently therefore KH confused what happened when, a year on.

Non-innocently, alternatively, he told the police she never turned up when in fact she did. A year later, having seen the diary page in the press, he now knew she could not have been planning to come at 6, as she was booked elsewhere. So he claimed others had called for her, to establish thst he was there all day, and that others knew of her intended movements. He then claimed to have said this all along so as to retrospectively alter the narrative the police understood.

The third is that his later account is literally true - there were two callers, he noted their numbers and gave them to the police who then did nothing and lost the information. LE didn't cover itself with glory in this inquiry so never say never, but such an obvious lead would surely have been stunning.

The first possibility seems simplest.

 

[Cherwell]

A year later, having seen the diary page in the press, he now knew she could not have been planning to come at 6, as she was booked elsewhere.

He would not have seen that as a difficulty. He would have been expecting her to come any time during opening hours; there was no need to stick to a rigid appointment.

 

[WestLondoner]

Well, unless (purely for argument's sake here) KH is actually responsible for her disappearance, and his previous account was that he she had agreed an exact time.

On 28 or 29 July 1986, that would be the simplest tale to tell: she'd said she'd come at 6, never showed, so something happened to her beforehand, nowhere near my pub, officer. By 1987 the specificity of that account could look like a problem. The diary page showed she needed to be elsewhere entirely at 6pm. So she clearly did not make any 6pm appointment at the pub. So why was KH telling the police that she did? Because in 1986, KH hadn't seen that diary and didn't know that appointment was impossible.

This isn't to say there ever was a fixed appointment or had to be. As we've said, once SJL knew where her stuff was, she could have come by any time that evening. Even if she really did intend to play tennis, probably she could have done so after that. What I'm suggesting is that CV / KH could possibly, in 1986, have said they'd agreed 6pm. When much later he realised she would never have made such an arrangement, and therefore any claimed 6pm appointment was a lie, then the picture needed to be fogged a bit. So he starts inventing others who knew she was coming.

As an explanation of why KH's story seems to have changed, it's a big reach, of course. It depends on KH having harmed her, told the police 6pm and then later intended to muddy the waters by changing his story. The simpler explanation is that in 1987 he misremembered the events of 1986. The supposed policeman who called from Chelsea police station on Monday maybe called from Fulham police station on Tuesday.

The woman caller is a mystery. The use of the name 'Susan' is interesting, because she was Susannah or Suze; only the press called her Suzy. So the claim of a caller using that name was not a fabrication by someone who was getting all their information from the press.

JC later got SB to call the office to say she wouldn't be coming. You wonder if this was him again and SJL has told JC she's expected somewhere. So he gets her to call to put it off. She asks the pub not to let "Susan" leave, as in, if she comes in with him to get the stuff, "please don't let me leave". But how such a conversation could be overlooked in 1986 I can't fathom.

 

[lee sumner]

AIUI there are three possible explanations for KH's story [edited].

One is that he confused his days. Someone told the police SJL had been meaning to go get her diary. We don't know who that was, but clearly the intended errand was known about in the Sturgis office. The police seem to have gone over there to fetch it that evening. They also showed up at the office the next day in case SJL did. It's thus possible that they rang the pub the next day with the same in mind - did she ever turn up for the diary? Innocently therefore KH confused what happened when, a year on.

Non-innocently, alternatively, he told the police she never turned up when in fact she did. A year later, having seen the diary page in the press, he now knew she could not have been planning to come at 6, as she was booked elsewhere. So he claimed others had called for her, to establish thst he was there all day, and that others knew of her intended movements. He then claimed to have said this all along so as to retrospectively alter the narrative the police understood.

The third is that his later account is literally true - there were two callers, he noted their numbers and gave them to the police who then did nothing and lost the information. LE didn't cover itself with glory in this inquiry so never say never, but such an obvious lead would surely have been stunning.

The first possibility seems simplest.

i agree. the third makes most sense. didnt DV interview KH for his book, and KH told DV he spoke on the phone to SL regarding her lost items, but according to AS it was his wife that spoke to SL over the phone. so it appears KH tells a lot of tales.

 

[Konstantin]

i agree. the third makes most sense. didnt DV interview KH for his book, and KH told DV he spoke on the phone to SL regarding her lost items, but according to AS it was his wife that spoke to SL over the phone. so it appears KH tells a lot of tales.

It was decades ago - he probably can't remember!

 

[Cherwell]

i agree. the third makes most sense. didnt DV interview KH for his book, and KH told DV he spoke on the phone to SL regarding her lost items, but according to AS it was his wife that spoke to SL over the phone. so it appears KH tells a lot of tales.

It's just normal human behaviour. People remember things wrong, even when they were directly involved.
I had a recent experience of this when I was given several versions of who telephoned who with some important news.
Someone told me that X had phoned my friend. I asked my friend how she heard, and she replied that Y had phoned her. In fact it was Z who had phoned her and asked her to ring Y. This was just a day after the event and people were already mixing it up.

 

[lee sumner]

It's just normal human behaviour. People remember things wrong, even when they were directly involved.
I had a recent experience of this when I was given several versions of who telephoned who with some important news.
Someone told me that X had phoned my friend. I asked my friend how she heard, and she replied that Y had phoned her. In fact it was Z who had phoned her and asked her to ring Y. This was just a day after the event and people were already mixing it up.

like chinese whispers, ha, ha.

 

[Cherwell]

like chinese whispers, ha, ha.

No, not really. That's when something is repeated by a series of people, each of whom changes it a bit.
In this case we have people remembering things wrongly.