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

[lee sumner]

Thankyou very much for your detailed post Westlondoner . Can you explain to me the concept of winning instructions ? (I have googled it tonight ). But I do not really understand how that works in the employer /employee scenario un the UK

https://hub.rightmove.co.uk/content/uploads/2018/10/Winning-Instructions-Exceptional-Agents-Guide.pdf

I have always found your posts to be so well thought out and logical.

Also I want to thank all of the other regulars on this thread as well for 1. being here and caring- respecting what others have to say. 2. presenting your own insights that are always a DPOV and makes you think of the alternatives.

My question is tonight - is there anywhere to go from here? Is her case now going to fade into obscurity because JC is dead ? I most certainly hope not. Is there anything us as a group can do? Can we arrange interviews with anyone? Can we be present next July somewhere - the POW perhaps (maybe not) and bring SJL to media attention in the UK again?

i would be happy to search the POW. i dont believe SL is there, but i would risk being charged with tresspassing if it meant trying to locate her remains. not being morbid, just curious.

 

[lee sumner]

Excellent points on Ripper case & although I don’t know as much as you do , I know a little & have had the same thoughts. It was much harder without tech & CCTV ofc.

Re: SL they gave up on tracing BMWs that fitted profile seen outside Shorrolds although numbers very finite & they were about 3/4 of way through. Reminded me of Ripper case where they gave up on looking at vehicles with a certain tyre tread. They just missed PS it was proven! Had they seen this through they might have caught him earlier.

IF Jo Yeates had gone missing in 1986 would the unfortunate Christopher Jeffries still be under a cloud & would Vincent Tabak be scot free? Would she have ever been found? I DO think there might be a similar ‘plain sight’ answer in the SL case. If it’s ever solved it might not be particularly complex as such.

Would the tragic Sarah Everard case still be a mystery if 1986?

On JC I think most of strongest evidence is in public domain now. SA in interview with Barley was/is a highly intelligent man. He was very sceptical on JC but was eventually completely convinced even though I think he was never sure about JC’s confession to Barley. Why? It would be good to hear more from him.

JC’s unaccounted for 6 nights post release have to be taken seriously too. There’s good evidence he lied here about whereabouts & used same tactics as he had on SB. They nailed him in part through his cash withdrawals on DT rape - Reading - & SB - Bristol.

Presumably they couldn’t do this for SL? Why not? Tech not there yet? Did he withdraw from bank in this period?

JC was probably not even in london after his release. he was blagging DS barley.

 

[lee sumner]

We seem to know from Barley in recent podcast now that SL lied to AL about who she saw after her parents on Sun night. Was it him? The friend alibi she apparently gave didn’t check out.

Looking back at AS, P:81, “They spoke later on the phone that evening [Sunday before she went missing] and discussed the arrangements for a party the following Tuesday. It was to be at the flat of a wealthy young man who lived in Park Lane, in the heart of Mayfair”.

The seems odd given AL had turned up in Worthing & left without her earlier…

i think the wealthy man on park lane is the man SL slept with while AL was away on holiday.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

i think the wealthy man on park lane is the man SL slept with while AL was away on holiday.

Yes that’s right & poss invited independently to SG’s 21st. Same social circles.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

JC was probably not even in london after his release. he was blagging DS barley.

Possibly, but no one could confirm a sighting for 6 approx days. This didn’t serve him & he was trying hard to convince police (unsuccessfully) re: any solid alibi.

Same happened re: SB. He was back in circulation around time approximately apparently seen by canal dumping witness - early hours for them & then late afternoon in Birmingham. Barley says he might have had a train ticket for Bristol in this unaccounted for period (podcast). Flimsy.

For me it’s one of the better pieces of evidence that he’s poss guilty. Financial records, bank acc not helpful to pin down? Presumably they checked. This helped place him in Reading re: DT rape & they could track his movements re: SB via ‘hole in wall’ cash withdrawals.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

My mind is now circling back to this milkman sighting TBH . I know I posted upthread about where this Boulevard Restaurant was in 86 ( in some article it says it was yards from Sturgis but its clearly not there today) . How this milkman would have identified the car is probably BS but, i will put the article below
Sunday Mirror 24.8.86
THis cannot be true IMM.

& @WestLondoner the restaurant was The Fulham Boulevard 676 Fulham Rd. Cocktails, fashionable, varied menu. Very SL.

 

[lee sumner]

Possibly, but no one could confirm a sighting for 6 approx days. This didn’t serve him & he was trying hard to convince police (unsuccessfully) re: any solid alibi.

Same happened re: SB. He was back in circulation around time approximately apparently seen by canal dumping witness - early hours for them & then late afternoon in Birmingham. Barley says he might have had a train ticket for Bristol in this unaccounted for period (podcast). Flimsy.

For me it’s one of the better pieces of evidence that he’s poss guilty. Financial records, bank acc not helpful to pin down? Presumably they checked. This helped place him in Reading re: DT rape & they could track his movements re: SB via ‘hole in wall’ cash withdrawals.

canal witness is insane. it was a man that has since died who told his friend he seen JC early hours of the morning dumping an object in the canal. canals get drained every 5 yrs, so there is no way SL is there.

 

[EddietheEagle]

the restaurant was The Fulham Boulevard 676 Fulham Rd. Cocktails, fashionable, varied menu. Very SL.

A logical choice of venue if your Shorrolds Rd appointment was real - as it's not far - but not so good if your appointment was faked. It's less than a minute on foot from the Sturgis office, hence chance of being spotted.

The preponderance of witness evidence in any case points strongly to SL's presence at the Shorrolds Rd appointment. Her diary entry was not falsified imo.

 

[lee sumner]

A logical choice of venue if your Shorrolds Rd appointment was real - as it's not far - but not so good if your appointment was faked. It's less than a minute on foot from the Sturgis office, hence chance of being spotted.

The preponderance of witness evidence in any case points strongly to SL's presence at the Shorrolds Rd appointment. Her diary entry was not falsified imo.

yes, finally someone who thinks like me. SL did not fake 37SR appointment. SL was happy to pick up her lost items at 6pm, but DV convinced a lot of people she wanted her lost items back urgently. they dont seem to understand 6pm was the pick up time on her way home after the viewing she arranged with joanna to view 43 waldermar. the 6pm pick up time is part of the evidence, but certain people want to believe she suddenly changed her mind and wanted lost belongings back ASAP.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

A logical choice of venue if your Shorrolds Rd appointment was real - as it's not far - but not so good if your appointment was faked. It's less than a minute on foot from the Sturgis office, hence chance of being spotted.

The preponderance of witness evidence in any case points strongly to SL's presence at the Shorrolds Rd appointment. Her diary entry was not falsified imo.

A logical choice of venue if your Shorrolds Rd appointment was real - as it's not far - but not so good if your appointment was faked. It's less than a minute on foot from the Sturgis office, hence chance of being spotted.

The preponderance of witness evidence in any case points strongly to SL's presence at the Shorrolds Rd appointment. Her diary entry was not falsified

A logical choice of venue if your Shorrolds Rd appointment was real - as it's not far - but not so good if your appointment was faked. It's less than a minute on foot from the Sturgis office, hence chance of being spotted.

The preponderance of witness evidence in any case points strongly to SL's presence at the Shorrolds Rd appointment. Her diary entry was not falsified imo.

True & good points, but was she trying to hide by then - thrown caution to wind - she was apparently thinking of a beauty/fitness operation & was NH & loss of day’s hoped for expected comm the final straw? Could she have explained if questioned? Was it only the big boss safely tucked away in Croc Tears she feared? Was she doing as told? JC told AR to do as told or harm would come to parents.

Did she ever go/regularly to this restaurant? I do think the solution to it all isn’t complex somehow.

There IS a puzzle piece, poss more than one that doesn’t fit & that’s one reason this abduction went unsolved in 1986 & it might be - for reasons/some evidence on this thread - that the viewing at 37 didn’t happen as we think.

@WestLondoner made some excellent points on this.

So much was understandably assumed at time about viewing at 37! Shorrolds though was a busy road. Did they ever ask for all agents showing there at lunchtime to come forward or anyone waiting there? They needed to with benefit of hindsight if not.

I am NOT saying viewing didn’t happen but think it’s definitely worth examining that it might not have transpired as we think. Did other agents have white fiestas? Were there other houses being shown that lunchtime (?)

I do think it’s worth considering below & playing devil’s advocate.

As police/AS reported:

“Did she really go to Shorrolds Rd? Was Riglin’s recollection accurate? Was it a genuine appointment with Mr Kipper? Or did she make up the name because she was up to something she did not want her office to know about? If so, was it personal or professional? If she did meet ‘Mr Kipper’, WHERE?”

WJ’s seeing the fiesta at 12:40 turned all the above sensible thoughts/lines of enquiry ‘upside down’ & further confused.

I know Devere & Doyle were adamant about what they saw but was this confirmation bias? They saw someone, Doyle saw TWO people. Def outside 37? They came forward days later.

We have photofits of two very different seeming men - one with a broken nose & longer hair.

SL just wasn’t very blonde on 28 July 86 despite any retrofitting. NB: last photo. Was she the blonde seen with certainty? Most average men wouldn’t really note her as a bright blonde!

Devere is on the record as saying he noticed house as he particularly liked it (AS) & in the press as it was well kept! Objectively it wasn’t (! - run down) compared to others there. So that’s a bit odd. Had he confused it with another house? There was a very nice one on the market close by.

Devere even says ‘he did not take much notice of her (the woman) as in a hurry’ (!)

Doyle thought the man was outside between 12 noon & 4pm. If he can’t be at ALL specific within a 4 hour window how can we tell his details are accurate?!

How many could recall for sale boards accurately if tested a week later? I know Sturgis were quite distinctive but confirmation bias…

NB: attached - I know a recon but there were other boards & lots of people at lunch time on this connecting road.

I couldn’t tell you which board or maybe even which house, beyond a few similar near each other on stretch of road, I’d noticed someone. There was nothing to distinguish the house - just not objectively ‘nice’ as Devere said. You’d notice a white painted one with a flower box etc.

HR is perhaps best witness but he never really saw the woman & poss heard another house door bang he said…let’s hope that wasn’t up for sale too.

HR inventing (!) dramatic facts about SL being abducted into an actual van & we’re all believing him. He enjoyed the notoriety & jolly to Belgium a little to much for me “Ah it was him - the Belgian - Kiper! Actually’.

Other boards in road & other similar houses:

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

yes, finally someone who thinks like me. SL did not fake 37SR appointment. SL was happy to pick up her lost items at 6pm, but DV convinced a lot of people she wanted her lost items back urgently. they dont seem to understand 6pm was the pick up time on her way home after the viewing she arranged with joanna to view 43 waldermar. the 6pm pick up time is part of the evidence, but certain people want to believe she suddenly changed her mind and wanted lost belongings back ASAP.

I’ve got an open mind on it & my thoughts about lost belongings very much there from my AS reading & I’d noted this.

She was doing a deal & the contact book is today’s mobile phone. Would you be happy for it to sit at a pub all day? I’d be there fairly fast to collect it & I’d not want any landlord looking at my stuff & personal correspondence. It’s an iphone without a passcode. She’d likely need a number too. If anything personal & private, we know SL had form for the personal - I’d want it sooner rather than later! Damn any big boss & office understaffing. It was a diary with ‘crucial names & personal appointments’ (AS) even the police prioritised it & rushed it to the investigating team.

I knew DV was going to be focused on this ‘errand’ in his book before I knew the contents. Although not his theories on cellar obviously .

Look 6pm may well have meant a generic ‘ in the evening’ - you may well be right & I am pedantic here - but when I read AS I thought ‘aha’ prompt SL wouldn’t have volunteered a specific ‘6pm’ as the pick up time to KH or wife as reported by them as her viewing then!

There’s still the unease of call to pub never resolved (AS & press) so this might be influencing me too. This isn’t entirely a red herring I believe but we don’t have clear facts on it.

 

[rvlvr]

True & good points, but was she trying to hide by then - thrown caution to wind - she was apparently thinking of a beauty/fitness operation & was NH & loss of day’s hoped for expected comm the final straw? Could she have explained if questioned? Was it only the big boss safely tucked away in Croc Tears she feared? Was she doing as told? JC told AR to do as told or harm would come to parents.

Did she ever go/regularly to this restaurant? I do think the solution to it all isn’t complex somehow.

There IS a puzzle piece, poss more than one that doesn’t fit & that’s one reason this abduction went unsolved in 1986 & it might be - for reasons/some evidence on this thread - that the viewing at 37 didn’t happen as we think.

@WestLondoner made some excellent points on this.

So much was understandably assumed at time about viewing at 37! Shorrolds though was a busy road. Did they ever ask for all agents showing there at lunchtime to come forward or anyone waiting there? They needed to with benefit of hindsight if not.

I am NOT saying viewing didn’t happen but think it’s definitely worth examining that it might not have transpired as we think. Did other agents have white fiestas? Were there other houses being shown that lunchtime (?)

I do think it’s worth considering below & playing devil’s advocate.

I know Devere & Doyle were adamant about what they saw but was this confirmation bias? They saw someone, Doyle saw TWO people. Def outside 37? They came forward days later.

We have photofits of two very different seeming men - one with a broken nose & longer hair.

SL just wasn’t very blonde on 28 July 86 despite any retrofitting. NB: last photo. Was she the blonde seen with certainty? Most average men wouldn’t really note her as a bright blonde!

Devere is on the record as saying he noticed house as he particularly liked it (AS) & in the press as it was well kept! Objectively it wasn’t (! - run down) compared to others there. So that’s a bit odd. Had he confused it with another house? There was a very nice one on the market close by.

Devere even says ‘he did not take much notice of her (the woman) as in a hurry’ (!)

Doyle thought the man was outside between 12 noon & 4pm. If he can’t be at ALL specific within a 4 hour window how can we tell his details are accurate?!

How many could recall for sale boards accurately if tested a week later? I know Sturgis were quite distinctive but confirmation bias…

NB: attached - I know a recon but there were other boards & lots of people at lunch time on this connecting road.

I couldn’t tell you which board or maybe even which house, beyond a few similar near each other on stretch of road, I’d noticed someone. There was nothing to distinguish the house - just not objectively ‘nice’ as Devere said. You’d notice a white painted one with a flower box etc.

HR is perhaps best witness but he never really saw the woman & poss heard another house door bang he said…let’s hope that wasn’t up for sale too.

HR inventing (!) dramatic facts about SL being abducted into an actual van & we’re all believing him. He enjoyed the notoriety & jolly to Belgium a little to much for me “Ah it was him - the Belgian - Kiper! Actually’.

Other boards in road & other similar houses:

Another excellent post. I wrote about the NDs back in the summer, I don’t find their sightings particularly compelling tbh. And HR describing Kiper as ‘boyishly’ handsome (!) on top of his apparent embellishments about what he saw should make us question his entire testimony, imo.

R

UK Post in thread 'UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #7'

Aug 8, 2025

I agree that the two sightings by Doyle and Devere are interesting but I also think it’s worth mentioning that they came forward only after the police reconstruction that had taken place a week after SL had disappeared had aired. I’m catching up on the Casefile podcast and in their recent episode on the disappearance of William Tyrrell there’s a short but interesting section regarding Dr Helen Paterson’s testimony concerning false memories and how they can be created.

Essentially, information learned after an event can potentially distort future retellings of the event, and I wonder if...

• rvlvr

• 

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Another excellent post. I wrote about the NDs back in the summer, I don’t find their sightings particularly compelling tbh. And HR describing Kiper as ‘boyishly’ handsome (!) on top of his apparent embellishments about what he saw should make us question his entire testimony, imo.

R

UK Post in thread 'UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #7'

Aug 8, 2025

I agree that the two sightings by Doyle and Devere are interesting but I also think it’s worth mentioning that they came forward only after the police reconstruction that had taken place a week after SL had disappeared had aired. I’m catching up on the Casefile podcast and in their recent episode on the disappearance of William Tyrrell there’s a short but interesting section regarding Dr Helen Paterson’s testimony concerning false memories and how they can be created.

Essentially, information learned after an event can potentially distort future retellings of the event, and I wonder if...

• rvlvr

• 

Great points. To add NB: 37 was a house devoid of kerb appeal. Also see AS/police below asking very good questions on legitimacy of 37 viewing at time!

How ironic & tragic if she didn’t go to 37 & was sitting in Fulham Boulevard until after a few drinks & a broken deal things took rather a unpleasant turn. I am wedded to neither but wonder at an almost banal, overlooked sinister, simplicity to it all (?) ‘In plain sight’.

 

[lee sumner]

Thank you for your kind words.

I haven't read any book (yet) on this particular case and must admit that I know relatively little compared to others on this thread; I'm very much standing on the shoulders of giants with this case.

I do try to look at things from a different perspective, primarily because my first question for any cold case is always; What did the police miss? My 2nd question; where did the police go wrong?

I'm very much of the opinion that the 2nd most common reason why a case runs cold, is due to the police missing something within the early stages of the investigation; the 1st reason being a lack of evidence of course.

With regards to the man seen outside the flat with Suzy, he very much to me sounds as though he fits the description of what one might refer to as a "yuppy," ergo, part of that 80's Thatcher tory boom that produced lots of young men in suits, with more money than sense, and an inherent sense of privilege and an inflated sense of self worth.

With regards to the reference to Mr Kipper; I didn't bring across my point with enough clarity of meaning; I indeed agree that Mr Kipper was definitely an alias, but my point being that the man who appears on the 2003 data that I found, may have also used the same alias.

So the name Kipper is false across the board.

Whether it's viable for a man to give a false name on an electoral role, is something I am not sure on.


I just find it intriguing that a Mr Kipper turns up in 2003 and is living around the corner from the road in which Suzy Lamplugh's sister was almost abducted from, and no further trace of this Mr Kipper can AFAIK be found in Oxford either before or after 2003.

It's like he just rocks up for a brief stint and then leaves.

Curious indeed

in my opinion the client gave the name, mr kipper. SL was not known for faking appointments.

 

[lee sumner]

Another excellent post. I wrote about the NDs back in the summer, I don’t find their sightings particularly compelling tbh. And HR describing Kiper as ‘boyishly’ handsome (!) on top of his apparent embellishments about what he saw should make us question his entire testimony, imo.

R

UK Post in thread 'UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #7'

Aug 8, 2025

I agree that the two sightings by Doyle and Devere are interesting but I also think it’s worth mentioning that they came forward only after the police reconstruction that had taken place a week after SL had disappeared had aired. I’m catching up on the Casefile podcast and in their recent episode on the disappearance of William Tyrrell there’s a short but interesting section regarding Dr Helen Paterson’s testimony concerning false memories and how they can be created.

Essentially, information learned after an event can potentially distort future retellings of the event, and I wonder if...

• rvlvr

• 

devere statement is interesting to me because he does not mention mr kipper. ND says he seen a woman matching description of SL standing in the doorway at 37SR. i think if ND was telling lies to get attention he would have mentioned mr kipper/mystery man with SL, but to seen her alone at shorrolds rd. this makes me think he was telling the truth, not jumping on the SL band wagon.

 

[CocktailQueen]

in my opinion the client gave the name, mr kipper. SL was not known for faking appointments.

But why would she be known for faking appointments? If she was, she probably wouldn’t have a job? Also, there’s a first time for everything.

Not saying you’re wrong, btw, but I don’t think it can be ruled out that it was a fake appointment. Even if she did actually take the keys, the appointment could still be fake.

 

[lee sumner]

But why would she be known for faking appointments? If she was, she probably wouldn’t have a job? Also, there’s a first time for everything.

Not saying you’re wrong, btw, but I don’t think it can be ruled out that it was a fake appointment. Even if she did actually take the keys, the appointment could still be fake.

i said not known for faking appointments.