UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #8

[Lady Stoddart-West]

The source for SJL and NB killing time in her flat seems ultimately to be DL, which does not fill one with any confidence. NB would certainly have been asked about this when he was interviewed - it's a bleedin' obvious question, after all - but we have nothing about this from sources from that time.

Weeeeell, except that to know he wasn't at home, she'd have had to go home. And if he were there, mysteriously then go out again. If you look at the parents's address and Disraeli Road, she'd have driven literally right past the PoW to get home. The work of a moment to stop and call if she could see the box was empty or there was no queue to use it.

It's another reason to doubt AL's official story that he couldn't remember who called whom. He couldn't have called her at a phone box, because how would he know which one and when. You could tell if someone's phoned you from one because of the pips and the traffic noise.


Yes, another detail not really captured in any 1986 vintage account.

I still don't get how the police found their way to the PoW or why, if somehow SF did know about this, nobody tried the pub. Unless, as suggested above, they did, and the calls KH misremembered later as from "Sarah" and a plod were in fact from Steph and MG and he just got the details wrong.

The calls received at 2pm approx, which might tie in with any escalation in Stevenage Rd. Pre SL reported missing & taken very seriously. Confusion logically possible ofc but not seen that way.

On POW I think wheels turned eventually as KH had reported chequebook missing to bank & police (?), Mon am, who called SL at work etc.

 

[lee sumner]

True, although the evidence JC killed SB is incredibly compelling. Not least as SB & husband knew of him & her Topshop bag - unusual dimensionally & more. He almost killed SM ‘I meant to kill you’. Her mini in garage etc. Likely violent rape, the copse attack, a stretch to think a different car dealer murderer killed her & SL in London months earlier, sold & JC bought a very damaged old SB banger (?) He also admitted was him & backtracked.

SL vanished in fulham. no clues just gone. SB abducted by JC who left behind loads of evidence. why would he commit the perfect crime, then 1 year later the total opposite of a perfect crime. because it was not him. he is not mr kipper.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

I think @Lady Stoddart-West is absolutely on to something regarding a Friday to Sunday switch regarding the belongings. What stands out to me from re-reading AS’s book this weekend is how very little attention is paid to the issue by the author. This was the last date Suzy had with her boyfriend, just a couple of days before her disappearance, and she was going to collect these belongings on the day she went missing. Yet it’s covered in just one small paragraph (page 25):



Note how AS says they were lost. Yet later Leegood would say they were stolen. Why weren’t they handed in at, or placed outside of, Mossop’s, rather than left outside of the pub? And there’s no mention of how or when police became aware that Suzy’s belongings were at the pub.

On the time, you’d think that if a punter had found the belongings then they’d have handed them in at the bar, if the pub was still open, rather than leaving them outside to be found. This makes me think the relief landlord found them relatively late - Chinese takeaways often stay open until after last orders. Not sure when the PoW would’ve called time on a Sunday? I think it’s plausible the relief landlord was heading out between 10 and 11 at night.

It’s true memories can fade or become corrupted over time but in his conversations with DV the relief landlord is consistently very clear that he found these items on the Sunday night on his way out to

SL vanished in fulham. no clues just gone. SB abducted by JC who left behind loads of evidence. why would he commit the perfect crime, then 1 year later the total opposite of a perfect crime. because it was not him. he is not mr kipper

SL vanished in fulham. no clues just gone. SB abducted by JC who left behind loads of evidence. why would he commit the perfect crime, then 1 year later the total opposite of a perfect crime. because it was not him. he is not mr kipper.

Absolutely & one (good) reason I’m not totally convinced. It’s undeniable there’s some very good, even excellent, circumstantial evidence amongst the frankly implausible. We also don’t have all the facts.

 

[WestLondoner]

Yes, JC is circumstantially a great suspect but the shine comes off when you consider how he operated later, and try to reconcile that to 28/7/86.

 

[rvlvr]

There absolutely was a ‘fact’, not relating to abduction directly, AS did change as DL asked police & they agreed & AS duly did so. This we DO know. AS thought pretty inconsequential. My feeling it might not have been noted by later investigations & if so ‘Sunday’ became ‘Friday’ factually over time. It wasn’t thought to matter too much. Why does it matter when a few things were lost & when?

This is my thinking regarding the keys too. These things perhaps weren’t immediately considered very important, and over time assumptions and suppositions became hardened and entrenched.

On who knew about the pub, AS says Suzy was ‘preoccupied’ with finding her belongings. But did he deduce this based on statements made by her colleagues, or simply from her behaviour, eg the calls and plans she made to retrieve said belongings across the morning? It’s not clear to me.

In the 80s would your bank also have known where you worked and how to reach you there? I didn’t get a bank account until the 90s, I don’t think any of the banks I’ve used since then have ever had my employer’s contact details as well as my own. I wonder what the exact sequence of events was that morning? Did Suzy call her bank (perhaps leaving with them her work number in case they needed to reach her?), then the pub called the bank, then the bank called Suzy back using the number given? Or would the bank have had that number anyway, a sort of ‘in case of emergencies’ type of thing?

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

This is my thinking regarding the keys too. These things perhaps weren’t immediately considered very important, and over time assumptions and suppositions became hardened and entrenched.

On who knew about the pub, AS says Suzy was ‘preoccupied’ with finding her belongings. But did he deduce this based on statements made by her colleagues, or simply from her behaviour, eg the calls and plans she made to retrieve said belongings across the morning? It’s not clear to me.

In the 80s would your bank also have known where you worked and how to reach you there? I didn’t get a bank account until the 90s, I don’t think any of the banks I’ve used since then have ever had my employer’s contact details as well as my own. I wonder what the exact sequence of events was that morning? Did Suzy call her bank (perhaps leaving with them her work number in case they needed to reach her?), then the pub called the bank, then the bank called Suzy back using the number given? Or would the bank have had that number anyway, a sort of ‘in case of emergencies’ type of thing?

Yes, absolutely on keys. They were certain, possibly too certain, she went to 37 Shorrolds on a straightforward viewing, because of HR sighting etc. Who pretends & completely fabricates seeing someone being bundled into a van?..

The police did, appropriately, ask all the right questions & consider all angles on viewing, but a narrative quickly entrenched. As you say.

Will think on bank but, yes, the bank had your work details. SF knew on lost things in 86. But as you say, suggest, no memorable big deal.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

In the 80s would your bank also have known where you worked and how to reach you there?

Not sure about this. I had a bank account back then and I don't think I ever gave a works contact number. In fact, it was ages before I had a phone at all. I think I must've given my mother's number as a contact.

My version of events:

• KH telephoned bank to report chequebook.
• SJL telephoned bank to report chequebook missing, and to cancel it.
• On that call, bank told Sjl that chequebook was found.

 

[WestLondoner]

They asked you for a contact number and you could fill in any number you liked or none. I got a bank account as a student and had none.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

They asked you for a contact number and you could fill in any number you liked or none. I got a bank account as a student and had none.

Seems plausible enough that she did indeed give works number then.