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

[Officer Dibble]

DBM

 

[lee sumner]

If this is true its really sad because this very action may have prevented them finding out what really happened. No disrespect to DL and PL as mum and dad, their world of pain never ended . But. It cannot be denied that Suzy had another world going on that her parents did not know about. (again we all know this). If I was a friend or boyfriend today would you sign an NDA at the expense of your friend being found? No way hosay The truth is the truth.

the truth is the truth. great comment, but DL and PL appear to be worried about SL reputation. i would sign nothing. tell it like it is.

 

[Klclevi]

Hi

Cannot remember if I posted this one upthread but its quite an interesting article as well. Sunday Telegraph 29.3.87

 

[WestLondoner]

On AL I now think it’s possible there was no call with SL at 10:15pm....It seems odd that AL can’t recall this final call (DV) who called whom etc. AS tells us this call was spent discussing logistics of attending wealthy expat’s party on Tues! They both knew where he lived & presumably would have chatted well before then (?) Why the urgency & I imagine other things to discuss such as his wasted trip to Worthing.

Agree, I have never believed AL's account here. He had all day to have this conversation but somehow contrived to have it at 10pm; how did either of them know where to reach the other? He was asked about this by the police on 28 or 29/7 when they kept him in till 3am. He may not remember who called whom if you asked him this for the first time 40 years later, but he would have been asked about this less than 40 hours later. There was no call; this was a fiction to disguise the fact that he had no idea what his ostensible girlfriend was up to.

Also from AS emerges a portrait of a young woman as "troubled" - his words - what does this mean exactly?

I took it to mean reckless sha99ing - not necessarily the number, but the wisdom of the encounters.

having a look back at this, could this be SF calling the pub looking for her.

She would remember having done this.

On SL the biggest indicator of his guilt IMO (although I am still on fence about him) are his comments to Barley on Bristol businessman who sold him SB’s mini & he says killed SB, SL & ‘another girl’. He was very stressed in interview & not toying with police at this time.

The issue for me is that he could simply have been cornered by a skilful interviewer. He never disclosed anything that only the perp could have known.

So who did tip off the police and who made the calls?

Really interesting point. SF somehow knew about the cheque book loss, but if she knew that and also knew what pub had called, it's really odd that it never occurred to MG to try calling there.

SF knew of lost possessions at time in office & no doubt others did too. A lost chequebook a bigger deal then than now not to mention contacts needed sooner rather than later…This is how police knew & ofc bank knew.

The pub called the bank and the bank called SJL (they wouldn't give her number out). If SF was on the main number and this call came in it would be the bank calling for SJL, not the pub. So SJL must have told SF or others about the PoW - yet nobody thought to call there before calling the police.

if SL had been blanking AL out in worthing that sunday, why would she be speaking to him on the phone at 1015pm the same night.

Exactly. It didn't happen.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Hi

Cannot remember if I posted this one upthread but its quite an interesting article as well. Sunday Telegraph 29.3.87


View attachment 649133

A phone box ‘2 minutes’ from where her car was found & a row & escalation after ‘mystery’ calls to pub…

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Agree, I have never believed AL's account here. He had all day to have this conversation but somehow contrived to have it at 10pm; how did either of them know where to reach the other? He was asked about this by the police on 28 or 29/7 when they kept him in till 3am. He may not remember who called whom if you asked him this for the first time 40 years later, but he would have been asked about this less than 40 hours later. There was no call; this was a fiction to disguise the fact that he had no idea what his ostensible girlfriend was up to.

I took it to mean reckless sha99ing - not necessarily the number, but the wisdom of the encounters.

She would remember having done this.

The issue for me is that he could simply have been cornered by a skilful interviewer. He never disclosed anything that only the perp could have known.

Really interesting point. SF somehow knew about the cheque book loss, but if she knew that and also knew what pub had called, it's really odd that it never occurred to MG to try calling there.

The pub called the bank and the bank called SJL (they wouldn't give her number out). If SF was on the main number and this call came in it would be the bank calling for SJL, not the pub. So SJL must have told SF or others about the PoW - yet nobody thought to call there before calling the police.

Exactly. It didn't happen.

Yes, very good points.

I still think very odd an ‘innocent’ JC says that the man who killed SB (him), also killed SL. Even taking on board what you say. Barley’s conviction quite compelling here too IMO.

On the 10:15.pm call, we now know she lied about who she was seeing to AL, post parents, when was this if not on this ‘call’? On the beach when she did indeed go off home with Sarah & a couple of less well known members of the ‘Putney Set’ (?)

It’s interesting AL says this 10:15pm call was mainly about SL getting logistics & arrangements together for wealthy, expat’s party on the Tuesday night, Is AL trying to suggest that this man was hitherto unknown to SL & attempting to disassociate her from him & sanitise & so preserve her reputation? Both were well aware where he lived, SL had been to his Mayfair address more than once, knew who he was & this detail on party hardly urgent. This huge sensitivity on Sun night is so marked & seems undeniably problematic.

 

[Klclevi]

Agree
You would also have to wonder if they spoke at 10.15pm why did he need to call her at 4.45pm the next day? (AS pg17)

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Agree
You would also have to wonder if they spoke at 10.15pm why did he need to call her at 4.45pm the next day? (AS pg17)

As they were apparently still dating we’d assume likely spoke everyday but surely logistics for a party a few days off not hot, urgently, on agenda late Sun night. Especially as already known & in SL’s diary.

 

[kes1972]

@rvlvr KH had called SL’s bank, from memory, too. He looked for a name and address in diary/contacts & said found none so called her bank. Midland, I think it was.

if MG knew pick up time was 6PM, that is why he did not go POW. he knew she was going there after work on the way

Hi

Cannot remember if I posted this one upthread but its quite an interesting article as well. Sunday Telegraph 29.3.87


View attachment 649133

So we know that the chrquebook went missing on friday, confirmed in this post from a news article 8 months later after event, that cannot be hearsay and mustber fact, so someone is telling porkies as sl never mentioned this the whole weekend to anyone even in chats with family but was flustered on monday at work, sorry al is lying fact!

 

[kes1972]

Hi

Cannot remember if I posted this one upthread but its quite an interesting article as well. Sunday Telegraph 29.3.87


View attachment 649133

A question was the ex chef mj married to the witness who visited the bank? Many thanks all!

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

So we know that the chrquebook went missing on friday, confirmed in this post from a news article 8 months later after event, that cannot be hearsay and mustber fact, so someone is telling porkies as sl never mentioned this the whole weekend to anyone even in chats with family but was flustered on monday at work, sorry al is lying fact!

Upthread we discuss the evidence re: why the things going missing on Sunday might have been reclassified to Friday. The police asked AS to make a factual change in timeline/a fact (it was thought this wouldn’t affect anything re: finding her) that had nothing to do with any of the sensitive material he kept back or withheld from book completely out of respect. ) (Later forced to reveal sensitive withheld material in a legal case). This, if so, to poss cover up what happened on Sunday night after her parents etc. We now know (recent podcast with Barley) SL lied to AL initially about who she saw after her parents on Sunday night. When questioned they said they hadn’t seen her. So there was a sensitivity on Sun night.

AL sticks to the Fri narrative in Doc therefore, if, as above, it’s the agreed story sanctioned by police. So not being dishonest as such.

There is other supporting evidence not least relief publican, KH, arriving in London on Sunday night (ready for work on Monday) & on going to collect a Chinese takeaway finding SL’s diary/contact book under the picnic tables by the phone box. He wasn’t in London on Friday to find her lost possessions (DV).

Then we have Brookner, in an early review, poss working from pre publication copy of AS, saying items lost on Sunday.

 

[Konstantin]

Upthread we discuss the evidence re: why the things going missing on Sunday might have been reclassified to Friday. The police asked AS to make a factual change in timeline/a fact (it was thought this wouldn’t affect anything re: finding her) that had nothing to do with any of the sensitive material he kept back or withheld from book completely out of respect. ) (Later forced to reveal sensitive withheld material in a legal case). This, if so, to poss cover up what happened on Sunday night after her parents etc. We now know (recent podcast with Barley) SL lied to AL initially about who she saw after her parents on Sunday night. When questioned they said they hadn’t seen her. So there was a sensitivity on Sun night.

AL sticks to the Fri narrative in Doc therefore, if, as above, it’s the agreed story sanctioned by police. So not being dishonest as such.

There is other supporting evidence not least relief publican, KH, arriving in London on Sunday night (ready for work on Monday) & on going to collect a Chinese takeaway finding SL’s diary/contact book under the picnic tables by the phone box. He wasn’t in London on Friday to find her lost possessions (DV).

Then we have Brookner, in an early review, poss working from pre publication copy of AS, saying items lost on Sunday.

Its quite common for police to hold back information, usually things that only the perpetrator would know, including to avoid nutters falsely confessing.

I'm wondering if some of the things that the police think happened on the Sunday evening are considered to be very key to the case. Her stuff going missing from her bag could be relevant (or just one if the many odd coincidences about this case). Same with where she went on the Sunday night.

What we have is AL saying she lost her stuff on the Friday and that they spoke on the phone on Sunday night but he can't remember who called who. Both those bits of data are weird. So I'd suggest maybe there's information about what she did on the Sunday night that's of possible significance.

What did her lodger say about the Sunday night?

We don't know when the fishy kipper appointment was put in her diary either.

 

[Konstantin]

He wasn’t in London on Friday to find her lost possessions (DV).

Which makes some sense because the pub was open and working normally on the Friday night wasn't it?

So if KH came to London then he'd have worked a shift in the pub on Friday night. Which would be somewhat odd - as unnecessary. Expensive for the landlord.

SL being in the pub garden to lose her stuff on Sunday night is possibly germane if her movements in that timeframe are of importance to the events on the Monday. Was she there? With someone? KH didn't see her. Did someone take her stuff out of her bag, drive her home, leaf through them (cheque stubs have interesting information on them) and then put them where someone could find them? If they dropped out her bag, that's honestly extremely careless of her. Part of her erratic behaviour?

 

[WestLondoner]

What did her lodger say about the Sunday night?

DL claimed in her 'open letter' to SJL WTTET she went back to her flat and she and Roger the Lodger spent the evening chatting in a "fun, friendly end to a super weekend". This was presumably because she was neurotic about any suggestion SJL might have been shamefully shacked up / cohabiting with NB. So far as I know, this is the only PD source for what she was actually doing after she returned from Worthing.

NB was interviewed on Tuesday having been out till very late on Monday (1am-ish?) and discovered the flat door (not the street door) broken open by plod. He would presumably then have been asked when he had last seen SJL. I don't think we know from him whether he said Monday before work or last thing Sunday.

AL is not reliable (the whole pointless call thing feels like a fiction), nor is DL, PL is a bit of a NPC in all this and we don't know whether she went back for seconds with rich expat, met Kipper to arrange 12.45 next day in person, or did something else entirely. NB would only know whether she was around or not, but nothing about what she was doing if not.

FWIW, whatever was known in the office about the cheque book / diary and the PoW, they didn't conclude she had vanished until she failed to show up for the 6pm second viewing.

 

[Konstantin]

DL claimed in her 'open letter' to SJL WTTET she went back to her flat and she and Roger the Lodger spent the evening chatting in a "fun, friendly end to a super weekend"

How on earth could DL even know that? Unless the lodger told her, which I suppose is what DL is implying.

DL was writing a rose tinted narrative of what she wanted SL's life to have been.

You can see why SL probably hid things from her mother - because she was controlling - but I don't think the dynamic is that unusual. DL was perhaps a tad more controlling than many and sadly her need to sanitise her daughter's life likely has impacted on finding her killer.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Its quite common for police to hold back information, usually things that only the perpetrator would know, including to avoid nutters falsely confessing.

I'm wondering if some of the things that the police think happened on the Sunday evening are considered to be very key to the case. Her stuff going missing from her bag could be relevant (or just one if the many odd coincidences about this case). Same with where she went on the Sunday night.

What we have is AL saying she lost her stuff on the Friday and that they spoke on the phone on Sunday night but he can't remember who called who. Both those bits of data are weird. So I'd suggest maybe there's information about what she did on the Sunday night that's of possible significance.

What did her lodger say about the Sunday night?

We don't know when the fishy kipper appointment was put in her diary either.

DL claimed in her 'open letter' to SJL WTTET she went back to her flat and she and Roger the Lodger spent the evening chatting in a "fun, friendly end to a super weekend". This was presumably because she was neurotic about any suggestion SJL might have been shamefully shacked up / cohabiting with NB. So far as I know, this is the only PD source for what she was actually doing after she returned from Worthing.

NB was interviewed on Tuesday having been out till very late on Monday (1am-ish?) and discovered the flat door (not the street door) broken open by plod. He would presumably then have been asked when he had last seen SJL. I don't think we know from him whether he said Monday before work or last thing Sunday.

AL is not reliable (the whole pointless call thing feels like a fiction), nor is DL, PL is a bit of a NPC in all this and we don't know whether she went back for seconds with rich expat, met Kipper to arrange 12.45 next day in person, or did something else entirely. NB would only know whether she was around or not, but nothing about what she was doing if not.

FWIW, whatever was known in the office about the cheque book / diary and the PoW, they didn't conclude she had vanished until she failed to show up for the

NB didn’t see SL on Sunday night (attached source DV ‘Finding Suzy’). This fits with previous rumour, now seemingly confirmed by Barley in recent podcast, that she went elsewhere after seeing her parents that eve.

I think she was either queuing to use phone (phone boxes often busy on Sunday eve) or waiting for a lift & lost/forgot possessions that eve to be later found by KH.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

KH (aka CV) arrived at pub with wife on Sunday eve in anticipation of stocktaker’s arrival at pub at 8:00am on Monday. He went to the Chinese to collect the takeaway & found SL’s things. Source: DV.

A key question is when? If SL left her parents around 9pm, did she drop car at home & immediately walk to POW? How was light at that time re: spotting items? Were they spread over ground - KH says “I just went out and there they were on floor”…Adding the items had probably fallen off the picnic tables.

 

[Konstantin]

NB didn’t see SL on Sunday night (attached source DV ‘Finding Suzy’). This fits with previous rumour, now seemingly confirmed by Barley in recent podcast, that she went elsewhere after seeing her parents that eve.

I think she was either queuing to use phone (phone boxes often busy on Sunday eve) or waiting for a lift & lost/forgot possessions that eve to be later found by KH.

So NB originally said he had chatted to her for a bit, "late" on Sunday. I don't think 9PM is "late" and I doubt NB or SL did. Even on a Sunday night. 11PM or midnight would be "late" in that context. Where was that reported? Didn't he get in late and sleep later than she did the next morning? Then later he claimed he can't remember seeing her. I know it's a long time ago but if that's the last time you saw someone who you lived with and who was abducted and murdered the day later - you'd remember that! Maybe he saw her in passing very late but if he'd had a few it might be a blur and you might not remember if it was that day or another one.

Could he have really forgotten all these years later?

KH thinks the placement of the items suggested she'd stuck her bag on the table and they'd fallen out, which makes sense. She must have been in a rush then. Your comment that it was dark or dusk would reinforce that, as visibility lower.

The Sunday night is so crucial, why is it so hard to bottom it out?

 

[kes1972]

Upthread we discuss the evidence re: why the things going missing on Sunday might have been reclassified to Friday. The police asked AS to make a factual change in timeline/a fact (it was thought this wouldn’t affect anything re: finding her) that had nothing to do with any of the sensitive material he kept back or withheld from book completely out of respect. ) (Later forced to reveal sensitive withheld material in a legal case). This, if so, to poss cover up what happened on Sunday night after her parents etc. We now know (recent podcast with Barley) SL lied to AL initially about who she saw after her parents on Sunday night. When questioned they said they hadn’t seen her. So there was a sensitivity on Sun night.

AL sticks to the Fri narrative in Doc therefore, if, as above, it’s the agreed story sanctioned by police. So not being dishonest as such.

There is other supporting evidence not least relief publican, KH, arriving in London on Sunday night (ready for work on Monday) & on going to collect a Chinese takeaway finding SL’s diary/contact book under the picnic tables by the phone box. He wasn’t in London on Friday to find her lost possessions (DV).

Then we have Brookner, in an early review, poss working from pre publication copy of AS, saying items lost on Sunday.

So what is the truth and the whole truth?friday or sunday? That is vital information so why did police put out false information?

 

[lee sumner]

So we know that the chrquebook went missing on friday, confirmed in this post from a news article 8 months later after event, that cannot be hearsay and mustber fact, so someone is telling porkies as sl never mentioned this the whole weekend to anyone even in chats with family but was flustered on monday at work, sorry al is lying fact!

it says SL lost items going into her flat, not the POW.