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

[Lady Stoddart-West]

One theory then (obviously with no evidence) - she'd arranged to meet someone at the pub or told someone she was going there. KH said he gave the police the number that the caller gave but they claimed to not have it. It's definitely weird. But lying about giving the police something potentially crucial on a missing persons case would be a very bizarre thing to do. What for?

I tend to think the Met just lost it and perhaps didn't think it was important because it was a woman's name and at a venue where the investigation didn't think SL had gone.

The Met thought it was incredibly important for some reason. Interesting…

 

[lee sumner]

She might have needed her diary ASAP to get numbers she needed to call that day - for social reasons maybe but also business contacts perhaps if she was involved in a deal. Though unclear if she could make personal calls from her work landline.

The importance of the diary - the equivalent to a smartphone really - to her life is why I think if she'd lost it on the Friday, the people she was around all that weekend would have heard about it. Did she really not call anyone that weekend? Surely she'd have mentioned it to her mum. She'd have been anxious about it. Wondering where she left it. Calling Mossops. The pub if they really went there which AL later denied. Calling AL asking if he'd picked it up. He'd have known about it surely as she was with him on the Friday.

SL did not want her diary back ASAP, because if she did she would have arranged pick up earlier, not 6pm. occams principle way of thinking. keep it simple. only DV thinks she wanted her items back ASAP, but DV is just coming up with a nutty theory, and people are buying into it. the evidence shows pick up time was 6pm. after she finished work she was getting her items back as she lived around the corner on disreali rd.

 

[lee sumner]

One theory then (obviously with no evidence) - she'd arranged to meet someone at the pub or told someone she was going there. KH said he gave the police the number that the caller gave but they claimed to not have it. It's definitely weird. But lying about giving the police something potentially crucial on a missing persons case would be a very bizarre thing to do. What for?

I tend to think the Met just lost it and perhaps didn't think it was important because it was a woman's name and at a venue where the investigation didn't think SL had gone.

as for the mystery call from sarah. KH made up this story 1 year later. its obvious he is telling lies. attention seeking.

 

[lee sumner]

as for the mystery call from sarah. KH made up this story 1 year later. its obvious he is telling lies. attention seeking.

if SL was calling for help. she would hardly call the POW. she would call the cops or a family member, not some nutty landlord she does not even know.

 

[lee sumner]

Well, I am not looking at DV in isolation & we can agree he interviewed CV at least - this is very detailed in his book . The police agree with a great deal of what DV has said…if not the ‘cellar’ theory…

AS gives details re: 6pm apt etc.

It’s my view that SL did invent ‘Kipper’ to get out at lunchtime to get her things in part & the final call she took ‘half sitting, half standing’ & perhaps the loss of expected commission NH took, influenced what happened next & fateful decisions made.

why would she invent mr kipper name to get out of the office when at 1pm its her lunch break. if she was going anywhere she could go then. DV also says SL did not take the keys to 37/SR, but to say this is an insult to the late detective carter who was SIO in charge of the investigation. as if a SIO like carter would miss something like that. no way. we can agree to disagree, but i think a mystery man set up the viewing as mr kipper and i also think she went to 37/SR.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

SL did not want her diary back ASAP, because if she did she would have arranged pick up earlier, not 6pm. occams principle way of thinking. keep it simple. only DV thinks she wanted her items back ASAP, but DV is just coming up with a nutty theory, and people are buying into it. the evidence shows pick up time was 6pm. after she finished work she was getting her items back as she lived around the corner on disreali rd.

I thought something off re: 6pm - for reasons stated on thread - for many years prior to DV. Also, that there was an urgency & tension around lost belongings - source AS & Brookner etc - it’s very plausible & understandable, IMO, she’d want & need them back earlier rather than later.

I agree with you that the answer to this mystery isn’t complex. It’s either JC or it’s someone almost hiding in plain sight potentially. DL herself said as the person buying the property with SL, involved in this ‘scheme’ never came forward, wasn’t identified & must likely be linked to her disappearance. Their contact details or a reference to them must have been somewhere.

 

[lee sumner]

LG (?) I am talking about AL - ah, think we mean same. They were together for a year or so, went to Paris, skiing etc, horse trials, balls so on paper at least he/they were serious. He knew her family & stepped up as spokesperson almost immediately for family. One of earliest interviews from him. They were friends before lovers & he was very loyal.

His turning up on the beach in Worthing on Sunday & leaving her alone to leave later with friends was a bit odd & suggests tension perhaps. Especially odd as he’d not been her plus one at 21st so had travelled presumably from London to Worthing only to turn around & go home again alone.

SL made her way home with SH her friend. AL just back off holiday, you would think they would travel back to london together.

 

[lee sumner]

Well, I am not looking at DV in isolation & we can agree he interviewed CV at least - this is very detailed in his book . The police agree with a great deal of what DV has said…if not the ‘cellar’ theory…

AS gives details re: 6pm apt etc.

It’s my view that SL did invent ‘Kipper’ to get out at lunchtime to get her things in part & the final call she took ‘half sitting, half standing’ & perhaps the loss of expected commission NH took, influenced what happened next & fateful decisions made.

loss of commision. SL had a cig break that morning with NH and SF. she shared her cigs with them, so this tells me there was no tension that morning. once again its more BS from DV. DV was an officer with the MET for 3 yrs. DCS carter served almost 30 yrs as a detective, which is why i have faith in what he says. we dont all think the same.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

why would she invent mr kipper name to get out of the office when at 1pm its her lunch break. if she was going anywhere she could go then. DV also says SL did not take the keys to 37/SR, but to say this is an insult to the late detective carter who was SIO in charge of the investigation. as if a SIO like carter would miss something like that. no way. we can agree to disagree, but i think a mystery man set up the viewing as mr kipper and i also think she went to 37/SR.

‘Lunchtime’ was unusually problematic for reasons discussed previously. Short staffed, big boss in etc.

No one was particularly focused on the keys as understandably assumed she took them. HR seeing SL & ‘Kipper’ outside Shorrolds caused all attention & focus here. HR was unreliable & he made things up or exaggerated unfortunately. The evidence is there & he backtracked. No van bundling involved etc! Possibly he heard another door bang - he later said. He caused a problem.

There’s evidence to suggest she was outside 37 or someone was/others were this said. A real focus on everyone in the vicinity showing properties etc that lunchtime would have been helpful.

I think that last call, made or received, might have led to picking someone up at Shorrolds. The unidentified person, if a developer might have been interested in what they used to call a ‘comparable’ or seeing a property from outside/neighbourhood ripe for carving up into flats etc. He might have immediately vetoed & they headed elsewhere. I do think going to pub on cards earlier than later too.

It’s plausible this person was the one indirectly flagged to Mum in last conversation.

 

[lee sumner]

I thought something off re: 6pm - for reasons stated on thread - for many years prior to DV. Also, that there was an urgency & tension around lost belongings - source AS & Brookner etc - it’s very plausible & understandable, IMO, she’d want & need them back earlier rather than later.

I agree with you that the answer to this mystery isn’t complex. It’s either JC or it’s someone almost hiding in plain sight potentially. DL herself said as the person buying the property with SL, involved in this ‘scheme’ never came forward, wasn’t identified & must likely be linked to her disappearance. Their contact details or a reference to them must have been somewhere.

thanks. the answer to this mystery is not complex. here we agree, ha, ha.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

loss of commision. SL had a cig break that morning with NH and SF. she shared her cigs with them, so this tells me there was no tension that morning. once again its more BS from DV. DV was an officer with the MET for 3 yrs. DCS carter served almost 30 yrs as a detective, which is why i have faith in what he says. we dont all think the same.

That’s true but I did pick up post cigs - which were v first thing - & good mood, from AS etc she was focused on locating belongings. SF noted too. All understandable. I agree Carter was an impressive, highly intelligent man.

 

[lee sumner]

‘Lunchtime’ was unusually problematic for reasons discussed previously. Short staffed, big boss in etc.

No one was particularly focused on the keys as understandably assumed she took them. HR seeing SL & ‘Kipper’ outside Shorrolds caused all attention & focus here. HR was unreliable & he made things up or exaggerated unfortunately. The evidence is there & he backtracked. No van bundling involved etc! Possibly he heard another door bang - he later said. He caused a problem.

There’s evidence to suggest she was outside 37 or someone was/others were this said. A real focus on everyone in the vicinity showing properties etc that lunchtime would have been helpful.

I think that last call, made or received, might have led to picking someone up at Shorrolds. The unidentified person, if a developer might have been interested in what they used to call a ‘comparable’ or seeing a property from outside/neighbourhood ripe for carving up into flats etc. He might have immediately vetoed & they headed elsewhere. I do think going to pub on cards earlier than later too.

HR did tell a lie saying he seen SL being bundled into a car, but his first sighting of a couple outside 37SR was the truth. SL put down appointment with annotation O/S which means she was meeting client outside. that is logic, common sense

 

[lee sumner]

That’s true but I did pick up post cigs - which were v first thing - & good mood, from AS etc she was focused on locating belongings. SF noted too. All understandable. I agree Carter was an impressive, highly intelligent man.

yes, carter lost his mother in law 3 yrs earlier. she went missing in the himalayars. not sure i have spelt it correctly.

 

[WestLondoner]

I tend to think the Met just lost it and perhaps didn't think it was important because it was a woman's name and at a venue where the investigation didn't think SL had gone.

Quite likely. At the time they picked up the stuff they'd already decided she was abducted from 37SR. This was just a trivial errand irrelevant to the important direction of inquiry.

SL did not want her diary back ASAP, because if she did she would have arranged pick up earlier, not 6pm.

Circular argument though. She wasn't free at 6pm so for all we know she did arrange an immediate or earlier pickup. There's also the question of why the day her stuff was lost is obfuscated.

HR did tell a lie saying he seen SL being bundled into a car, but his first sighting of a couple outside 37SR was the truth.

Not necessarily. He claimed to have seen and heard them leaving but the police concluded that nobody had been inside 37SR that day. His own later ID of DR as a dead ringer for "Kipper" undermines the accuracy of the description and sketch, which look nothing like DR.

 

[Polly_222]

Hi everyone hope you had a wonderful Christmas and New year.
I have been giving a little bit of thought as to moving this thread forward leading up to the 40th anniversary on July 28th and would welcome anyones thoughts.
A couple of us have recently been able to contribute t osome recently published podcasts Q&A (admittedly edited to how they saw fit so PLEASE remember that if you happen to listen to it - what was submitted is not what is necessarily relayed.)

There are also some independent researchers in the UK that are actively still on this case.

Also before I go any further, those who have not read the updated rules regarding posting should do so please.

I thought maybe we could move forward based on two schools of thought ( simple as they are, and i do not know in a thread how this would work but i am just putting it out there!)

1. JC was responsible for her abduction and murder
2. JC was not responsible and the answer lies in other areas of her life.

Either scenario is completely possible .

Every person on this thread is either one of three minds
1. JC did it
2. JC did not
3. On the fence (for want of a better word)

I read somewhere (it may have been on a very early post in this thread ) that this case is like a rubiks cube. It lines up suddenly but then it takes you down a rabbit hole of other possibilities.

Obviously there are people on this thread that are from the UK of that time and possibly (and do) have information about her life that would never have otherwise been known in the public domain. That information is to be trusted as a gift to your knowledge and I thankyou for that. It also it provides an insight into life in London in the 80s that we from far flung parts of the word have no idea about but what was only relayed by what TV broadcast at the time (Countdown music show here in Aus (like Top of the Pops I guess) and we only had like 2 tv stations in 86! I mean Wham was just the best thing I had seen ever. haha

I love hearing your stories about that time and I think all of us here who are really invested in an outcome respect that.

Happy for anyones thoughts on this. I have known about this case for a long time, but it is only in the last 12 mths I have been able to read and research it. This thread has been invaluable to me re schools of thought and I thank many of you for that.

It certainly doesnt mean Suzy will be found (we can only hope so) . It is possible. I am in Aus, and just 3 weeks ago a plumber found the remains of a woman that disappeared 40 years ago buried in a backyard.

In all due respect to the Lamplugh family who might want this case closed after 40 years of pretty much heartache I completely understand their position. However, I highly doubt Suzys case is ever going to go away whilst real questions continue to be unanswered. Is this in the best interests of the family? I guess we should think about that a bit more.

Fun fact I had a ticket to see Wham but George Michael cancelled the show as he had a bad throatBut yes Wham best ever. Always been interested in this case especially as coming from the same area as poor Shirley Banks