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

[AfricanGrey]

I’ve had another look at AS chapter 3, in which he writes that two young detectives were sent to the PoW to collect the items. AS implies this happened on the Tuesday, however the items were collected on the Monday night, by the police.

 

[tes1984]

I find it quite distasteful that DV can publish a complete character assassination of an innocent man, who is not difficult to identify, knowing that it could leave him open to abuse or attack.

This is what I meant by people having an ethical issue with DV's book.

DV has been accused before of omitting things to suit his theory.

 

[AfricanGrey]

The calls were genuine, my involvement does not extend to knowing what happened to the phone number

 

[rvlvr]

Genuine in what sense though? That the relief landlord received two calls, one from ‘Sarah’ and the other purporting to be from a policeman, or just that that was the relief landlord’s recollection of events?

Perhaps AS didn’t get the story quite right (I’m not disputing your input but obviously we only have your word for it) but was he right that none of this was satisfactorily explained?

 

[WestLondoner]

Is there a solid source for the diary etc being lost and found on the Friday? KH reckons he found them and phoned the bank the next day, which he could not have done on a Saturday in 1986. AL said they went to the PoW on Friday and the stuff was stolen, but he later denied ever going to the PoW. He can't have noticed the diary was stolen or lost on the Friday while with SJL at the pub so when and how did he hear about this loss? He didn't see her on Saturday and she seems to have blanked him all day Sunday. She could have mentioned it in the alleged Sunday phone call, but if so, why did she not inquire at the pub on Sunday? She had driven right past it to get home from her parents' house. And if they were found on Friday by MH, the permanent landlord, why did the police not take a statement from him?

It's also interesting that the police went to the pub for them on Monday evening. That says someone at the Sturgis office besides SJL knew what she had lost and where it was; nobody else could have told them.

Were the two calls satisfactorily explained? The one from "Chelsea police" in "the afternoon" could easily have been Fulham police at 6pm, so that one is easily dealt with. But who was the woman who called wanting "Susan" kept there if she showed up?

 

[Konstantin]

It's also interesting that the police went to the pub for them on Monday evening. That says someone at the Sturgis office besides SJL knew what she had lost and where it was; nobody else could have told them.

I think her colleagues did know about it at the time. She was making phone calls about it that morning in the open plan office and must have mentioned it to colleagues. I think one of them mentioned it somewhere. Incidentally, if SJL was in such a good mood on the Monday morning, she can't have been that worried about her diary etc! Maybe she didn't realise had lost it until she got the call from the pub or the bank?

Were the two calls satisfactorily explained? The one from "Chelsea police" in "the afternoon" could easily have been Fulham police at 6pm, so that one is easily dealt with. But who was the woman who called wanting "Susan" kept there if she showed up?

Given her office were looking for her that afternoon and knew her stuff had been lost at the pub, it's really plausible -- even expected maybe -- that someone would call the pub and ask for her. KH was probably just busy running the pub for perhaps the first time on his own and dealing with punters and whatnot and not really forensically listening to the call. "Susan" is explained easily, he would not have been really thinking about the name of the lady who lost her diary there, Susan is close enough, his wife I think had spoken to her on the phone not him?

People get the names wrong of those they are not super close to e.g. colleagues all the time, let alone someone he'd never met.

I think the Met messed up the investigation quite badly and I am not inclined to believe them when they say that their DCs never got a piece of paper with a phone number on it. They probably just dismissed it and lost it, then later perhaps made stuff up to cover themselves.

 

[WestLondoner]

That makes a lot of sense. Someone recalls she said she had to go to the pub; calls the pub on the off-chance but no dice; later tells the police, who make their own call to see if she ever turned up there; then go to pick the stuff up themselves.

 

[rvlvr]

The call purporting to be from a policeman isn’t so innocently explained though, is it? Not if the call came in before police were notified SL was missing, which didn’t occur until 6.45pm. This would’ve likely rang alarm bells with actual police. I’m often quite critical of the Met but even I find it hard to believe they would’ve dismissed this and lost the number. Perhaps it was investigated and turned out to be a dead end, but in which case AS could’ve simply wrote it up as such, as he did with other leads that turned into dead ends. It’s a peculiar thing to allegedly sensationalise.

 

[Konstantin]

That makes a lot of sense. Someone recalls she said she had to go to the pub; calls the pub on the off-chance but no dice; later tells the police, who make their own call to see if she ever turned up there; then go to pick the stuff up themselves.

If my colleague didn't come back from lunch after they mentioned and I'd heard them on the phone about picking up some very important lost property at a pub, I'd definitely think that's where they might have gone.