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

[rvlvr]

Do we actually know what time KH found the items that Sunday night? We know he was on his way to get a Chinese takeaway (or on his way back?) as per his conversation with DV but I can't recall DV asking him what time this was, precisely, other than it must've been quite late by then.

He told DV (chapter 38): “I was going to the takeaway. And I found the chequebook on the way out.” He said he thought Suzy had probably put her bag on the picnic tables outside of the pub and the belongings had fallen out. Later (chapter 44), he recalled to DV that “the chequebook and diary were just outside the door. As you stepped out of the door, there were like a little area with a couple of benches on it. And the chequebook and diary was on the floor just in front, side of the benches.”

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

He told DV (chapter 38): “I was going to the takeaway. And I found the chequebook on the way out.” He said he thought Suzy had probably put her bag on the picnic tables outside of the pub and the belongings had fallen out. Later (chapter 44), he recalled to DV that “the chequebook and diary were just outside the door. As you stepped out of the door, there were like a little area with a couple of benches on it. And the chequebook and diary was on the floor just in front, side of the benches.”

As she was around the corner at 7-7:30pm a better fit for takeaway time perhaps & Ken heading out?

 

[lee sumner]

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?

i always thought SL came home from her parents house and went straight to bed. DL said to SL, your not over doing it are you, to which suzy replied, no mum, life is for living.

 

[Konstantin]

No but she left her parents at 9pm.

She left Worthing at 5:30pm. She then took her surfboard to her flat in Putney she, AS tells us, felt uncharacteristically tired. Why not go to pub/phone on return & make plans for later.

This would be about 7-7:30pm. Why not then? Would tie in with Chinese takeaway perhaps.

On the Saturday night, she told someone at the party that she was working on a joint deal with someone (as per AS). So it was on her mind and she was proud enough of it to turn it into party small talk. She said she hoped to clinch a sale on her flat "soon". No one could remember details of which property or which clients etc. Maybe that was because she was sketchy on those details.

Who was the estate agents handling her flat sale, or was she doing it herself? Did she have a buyer lined up?

So, she gets a lift back to her flat while AL drives back separately (he doesn't drive her back - why not?). Takes her surfboard home. AS says she is feeling tired and maybe this detail came from AL and the "tired" excuse was linked to why she didn't want him to drive her home! AS says that AL was delayed returning from Worthing - why?

She then drives her Fiesta to her parents where she tells DL she can't come to a birthday lunch on Wednesday because Sturgis are strict (I reckon she had other potential plans and this was another excuse she fed DL). She leaves there at 9PM and then it's not clear what she does. AS said she had an arrangement with AL that he'd come over to her flat if they were back before 8PM but that sounds really dodgy - she'd been at her parents' place until 9PM, no mobile phones so she had no idea where AL was.

AS claims that AL told detectives he and SL had spoken later that evening on the phone and discussed the party they were planning to attend at the Park Lane flat of AL's mate that SL was quite obviously sleeping with already. Either AL is very naive and trusting, or he didn't care she was two timing him, or this is all covering up for a row. Maybe it is a partial truth - they DID discuss the party but the context was AL being concerned/or pi***d off that SL was "involved" with the host, his mate.

At no point in this timeline does AS mention that SL had lost her stuff on the Friday, as surely this would have been what she wanted to talk to AL about.

Did SL go to use the pub phone to call AL so that she could avoid having a row with him on the phone while her lodger was there?

AS says the phone call with AL was about 10:15 PM that day. The only source we could have for that would be AL himself. You'd assume he would call her. I wonder if his caginess about this detail is because there were tensions between them.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

i always thought SL came home from her parents house and went straight to bed. DL said to SL, your not over doing it are you, to which suzy replied, no mum, life is for living.

There’s good evidence now all not as seemed & more to it.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

i always thought SL came home from her parents house and went straight to bed. DL said to SL, your not over doing it are you, to which suzy replied, no mum, life is for living.

There’s good evidence now all not as seemed & more to it all.

On the Saturday night, she told someone at the party that she was working on a joint deal with someone (as per AS). So it was on her mind and she was proud enough of it to turn it into party small talk. She said she hoped to clinch a sale on her flat "soon". No one could remember details of which property or which clients etc. Maybe that was because she was sketchy on those details.

Who was the estate agents handling her flat sale, or was she doing it herself? Did she have a buyer lined up?

So, she gets a lift back to her flat while AL drives back separately (he doesn't drive her back - why not?). Takes her surfboard home. AS says she is feeling tired and maybe this detail came from AL and the "tired" excuse was linked to why she didn't want him to drive her home! AS says that AL was delayed returning from Worthing - why?

She then drives her Fiesta to her parents where she tells DL she can't come to a birthday lunch on Wednesday because Sturgis are strict (I reckon she had other potential plans and this was another excuse she fed DL). She leaves there at 9PM and then it's not clear what she does. AS said she had an arrangement with AL that he'd come over to her flat if they were back before 8PM but that sounds really dodgy - she'd been at her parents' place until 9PM, no mobile phones so she had no idea where AL was.

AS claims that AL told detectives he and SL had spoken later that evening on the phone and discussed the party they were planning to attend at the Park Lane flat of AL's mate that SL was quite obviously sleeping with already. Either AL is very naive and trusting, or he didn't care she was two timing him, or this is all covering up for a row. Maybe it is a partial truth - they DID discuss the party but the context was AL being concerned/or pi***d off that SL was "involved" with the host, his mate.

At no point in this timeline does AS mention that SL had lost her stuff on the Friday, as surely this would have been what she wanted to talk to AL about.

Did SL go to use the pub phone to call AL so that she could avoid having a row with him on the phone while her lodger was there?

AS says the phone call with AL was about 10:15 PM that day. The only source we could have for that would be AL himself. You'd assume he would call her. I wonder if his caginess about this detail is because there were tensions between them.

Additionally on this call she told him she was off to see other friends or hanging with them post London return. They denied. She lied to AL. I think AS she was in Putney about 7-7:30 she may have made calls then & lost stuff which KH found.

 

[Eastend Eagle]

Yes, very good points.

I still think very odd an ‘innocent’ JC says that the man who killed SB (him), also killed SL.

Miscarriages of justice have of course happened before.
Maybe Cannan was telling the truth.
Just because a rapist doesn't a murderer make.
MOO

 

[lee sumner]

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.

JC telling DS barley the man who killed SB also is responsible for SL murder is what made me convinced he was telling the truth. i was thinking the same as DS barley. that this was JC implicating himself, but now iam not so sure. its possible he was playing mind games with barley. pretending to be the mysterious mr kipper because he wants to be notorious.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Miscarriages of justice have of course happened before.
Maybe Cannan was telling the truth.
Just because a rapist doesn't a murderer make.
MOO

True, although the evidence JC killed SB is incredibly compelling. Not least as SB & husband knew of him & her Topshop bag - unusual dimensionally & more. He almost killed SM ‘I meant to kill you’. Her mini in garage etc. Likely violent rape, the copse attack, a stretch to think a different car dealer murderer killed her & SL in London months earlier, sold & JC bought a very damaged old SB banger (?) He also admitted was him & backtracked.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

JC telling DS barley the man who killed SB also is responsible for SL murder is what made me convinced he was telling the truth. i was thinking the same as DS barley. that this was JC implicating himself, but now iam not so sure. its possible he was playing mind games with barley. pretending to be the mysterious mr kipper because he wants to be notorious.

I have pondered too but he was deadly serious & needed a break, stressed & far from cocky.

 

[lee sumner]

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.

investigators always have hold back info. that is why i would love to see the original case file.

 

[kes1972]

General consensus is Sunday, as relief landlord KH aka CV not around till then to pick them up outside the POW.

But the newspaper article from within 8 months of the incident are saying adamantly friday. (As per newspaper report on the earlier thread)You cannot move the goalposts just for convenience

 

[kes1972]

But the newspaper article from within 8 months of the incident are saying adamantly friday. (As per newspaper report on the earlier thread)You cannot move the goalposts just for convenience

Did you know there is a strong family connection with cv and paintball games

 

[kes1972]

He told DV (chapter 38): “I was going to the takeaway. And I found the chequebook on the way out.” He said he thought Suzy had probably put her bag on the picnic tables outside of the pub and the belongings had fallen out. Later (chapter 44), he recalled to DV that “the chequebook and diary were just outside the door. As you stepped out of the door, there were like a little area with a couple of benches on it. And the chequebook and diary was on the floor just in front, side of the benches.”

So he did see sl then to know they may have fallen out of her bag then??

 

[lee sumner]

There’s good evidence now all not as seemed & more to it all.

Additionally on this call she told him she was off to see other friends or hanging with them post London return. They denied. She lied to AL. I think AS she was in Putney about 7-7:30 she may have made calls then & lost stuff which KH found.

sturgis were handling the sale of SL flat.

 

[lee sumner]

There’s good evidence now all not as seemed & more to it all.

Additionally on this call she told him she was off to see other friends or hanging with them post London return. They denied. She lied to AL. I think AS she was in Putney about 7-7:30 she may have made calls then & lost stuff which KH found.

sturgis were handling the sale of SL flat.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

But the newspaper article from within 8 months of the incident are saying adamantly friday. (As per newspaper report on the earlier thread)You cannot move the goalposts just for convenience

NB: my posts about why this may have happened. AS was asked by police to change a factual timeline type detail. A fact. We know there was grave sensitivity about Sunday night especially as Barley has now recently confirmed SL gave a false alibi to AL.

The police also put out a reputation saving ‘she was only a modern girl’ article that wasn’t universally supported in force as there was evidence to contrary. This might further support above. They bowed to DL’s will.

AS added the detail wasn’t that important. No biggie. Not related to Monday abduction it was thought.

The above ignores the other, fairly good, supporting evidence.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

sturgis were handling the sale of SL flat.

Yes they were. How linked to my post?

 

[Officer Dibble]

Do you think it possible that the white Fiesta had the plates switched for another white Fiesta? As in a planned swap? I wonder if the vehicle VIN on the engine was checked?

 

[kes1972]

Do you think it possible that the white Fiesta had the plates switched for another white Fiesta? As in a planned swap? I wonder if the vehicle VIN on the engine was checked?

Good point, that would explain bw sighting and her car on stevenage road may never have moved maybe taggart or jc or an other drove the other fiesta with duplicate plates that could explain all the sightings and would then lead me to believe definitely a jc crime