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

[Konstantin]

Here is another BW article - this one kinda blew me a way tbh.

It actually makes perfect sense that SL and Kipper had lunch. Otherwise what was she doing all that time?
Re the champagne bottle, could they really have taken that into a smart lunch place to drink?
Also buying a bottle from an off licence seems a bit declasse. Would that fit with a wealthy client with good taste?

 

[Rookie D]

There's also another potential angle here.

What if the woman seen outside the property wasn't Suzy, but Suzy's abduction was planned by more than one person?

Could the couple seen outside the property have been a deliberate decoy to detract from the real abduction that occurred elsewhere?

I mean, ridiculous conspiracies aside, could Suzy have been the victim of a professional hit, whereby her disappearance was orchestrated by those who wanted to get her out of the way?

Did Suzy get herself embroiled in a world of high end-criminality that involved dodgy business deals and investments?

IMO, every angle is worth pursuing.

 

[WestLondoner]

Here is another BW article - this one kinda blew me a way tbh.

Isn't Carter a piece of work?

For a long time the impression given about the BW sighting was that it took ages to come in because BW had been on holiday, so her memory must have been at fault and she could be discarded.

The report you've surfaced (well done BTW) shows that she took just 4 days to report it and the police then sat on it for 3 more weeks - giving anyone who might have corroborated it a nice long time to forget what they saw and when.

Carter appears bent on giving clichés a new lease of life: "we didn't want to lead anyone up the garden path, otherwise we'd have ended up with egg on our face." I'm only surprised he didn't say double negatives were a big no-no.

 

[WestLondoner]

What's very noticeable about many of these cuttings from the time is how quickly a quite inaccurate account of events took hold.

"Susie" is declared as having been seen at 37SR when in fact a blonde woman was seen from behind through a net curtain for 2 to 3 seconds. That was it. The pieces are in some cases accompanied by the photo of SJL at the party where she is patently not blonde, but this discrepancy is never parsed or commented on.

She's said to have gone somewhere "after a viewing" even though the police already knew there had been no viewing, because nobody had been inside 37SR that day.

Already, the most-used media image of "Kipper" is always the pencil sketch. The e-fit - of what is quite clearly a second man - is hardly ever seen, even in the early days. If they'd used that e-fit all the time, would anyone later insist it showed Cannan?

Certain inconsistencies are already being suppressed. JI reported a suntanned man, the e-fit witness reported a pasty man and HR described a man who looked healthy but not suntanned. I make that three men and given the vagueness of sighting times I still say one was MG.

 

[lee sumner]

Also as you said @WestLondoner yes absolutely they had to be doing something between 1pm and 2.45.

I think this makes sense. The car was obviously driven to this laneway - ie she drove the car, potentially via Shorrolds (I guess looking at the map that is Rostrevor Mews?)

Good hiding place for a car if your Boss is around the corner in Crocodile tears.

The taxi driver that came forward after the Oct 86 Crimewatch said he dropped a man with the champagne ribboned bottle in Munster road. (do not know where)

Would he have walked to Shorrolds from there? (google says 3 mins walk so not far at all)

Also thinking about the sighting of the Fiesta driving erratically in Kelvedon Road (CW 2000 does not say what time this was unfortunately but it says the car indicated right off Kelvedon to Fulham Road.

Evening Standard 17.10.86

View attachment 646077

You've been criticising all and sundry for a while now, but what's your theory about what actually happened to Suzy?

yes, i have been criticising for a while now. i was having a go at DV because i dont buy his theory, but fair point. anyway here is my theory. i think mr kipper was posing as a buyer and set up the appointment at 37SR. i dont believe SL put in a fake appointment to get out of the office. i also was wondering if mr kipper was even after SL. maybe he was after luring any female EA into a trap. i think she viewed 37SR then went off with him to another location where she was taken captive. mr kipper then ditched SL car on stevenage rd where it was found at 10pm that night.

 

[lee sumner]

On the other hand, it being just down the road from the office might explain her leaving her handbag behind, she wasn’t going far and if meeting someone she knew and for a purpose then perhaps she felt she had no need to take it.

handbag left behind shows she was going to view 37SR in my opinion.

 

[lee sumner]

It's good to see the thread back on a more reasoned, logical path again.

Apropos the keys. If the appointment at Shorrolds Road was genuine, then obviously SL left with the keys. Had the appointment been a ruse, she would also have taken the keys. By all accounts, SL was artful. She wasn't, however, stupid.

Tales of keys not being taken and dismissing the statement of a highly experienced SIO regarding the keys, a detective with several successful murder inquiries to his name, is simply fanciful.

The keys disappeared along with SL, possibly kept hidden by JC as a trophy after he killed her, or dumped. Other keys were later found in his possession that have never been accounted for.

if JC took the keys or yellow fobs as a trophy. i think they would have been found at foye house during SB investigation. other keys found look like keys to a lock up, somewhere he could have taken SL perhaps.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Isn't Carter a piece of work?

For a long time the impression given about the BW sighting was that it took ages to come in because BW had been on holiday, so her memory must have been at fault and she could be discarded.

The report you've surfaced (well done BTW) shows that she took just 4 days to report it and the police then sat on it for 3 more weeks - giving anyone who might have corroborated it a nice long time to forget what they saw and when.

Carter appears bent on giving clichés a new lease of life: "we didn't want to lead anyone up the garden path, otherwise we'd have ended up with egg on our face." I'm only surprised he didn't say double negatives were a big no-no.

The male witnesses were immediately believed, that’s interesting.

Perhaps though, as they said on the Crimewatch programme, this was a case where the main focus on ‘what is known’ & much of these known ‘facts’ were surmised preconceptions. At least they included BW’s sighting here.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

There's also another potential angle here.

What if the woman seen outside the property wasn't Suzy, but Suzy's abduction was planned by more than one person?

Could the couple seen outside the property have been a deliberate decoy to detract from the real abduction that occurred elsewhere?

I mean, ridiculous conspiracies aside, could Suzy have been the victim of a professional hit, whereby her disappearance was orchestrated by those who wanted to get her out of the way?

Did Suzy get herself embroiled in a world of high end-criminality that involved dodgy business deals and investments?

IMO, every angle is worth pursuing.

There are some who think she was wittingly or unwittingly caught up in fraud. So definitely yes to dodgy business deals! We know for certain one in play.

She didn’t objectively have the money for this active/live deal & that could that have led to escalation. Did ‘Kipper’ assume she came from & had more money than she did? She didn’t get that commission, couldn’t sell flat & was urgently trying. DL thrilled when eventually sold as she’d wanted it badly. She told someone at 21st she was due to get a few thousand soon & both they & her parents said she was excited.

The fact that almost all on case believed this joint ‘deal’ maker either had skin in game (never came forward) or was ‘Mr Kipper’ himself speaks volumes. It’s interesting her father didn’t take her seriously on this ‘deal’ when she spoke at length about it on the Sunday night.

“Her family thought she would live in the house but with strings attached”. Surely PL, in a law firm etc ,would have advised for serious caution here? She said “don’t ask me about it, I’ll tell you about it when it’s completed” elsewhere. DL seems to think someone using it as ‘the mailing address for own ends’ ok. Then talks of ‘safe houses’.

Did any implied caution from Dad seed doubt & she bailed on deal. He called & said ‘meet me now up the road’ & try & talk her round? Was he relying on her compliance & her money.

Agree on all angles but this was a very important starting point IMO. Also favour the simplest solutions. The blonde could have been anyone & this was never considered.

The police were ‘furious’ the family ‘presumed’ they knew about the deal. Why was this I wonder?