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

[Lady Stoddart-West]

The source for SJL and NB killing time in her flat seems ultimately to be DL, which does not fill one with any confidence. NB would certainly have been asked about this when he was interviewed - it's a bleedin' obvious question, after all - but we have nothing about this from sources from that time.

Weeeeell, except that to know he wasn't at home, she'd have had to go home. And if he were there, mysteriously then go out again. If you look at the parents's address and Disraeli Road, she'd have driven literally right past the PoW to get home. The work of a moment to stop and call if she could see the box was empty or there was no queue to use it.

It's another reason to doubt AL's official story that he couldn't remember who called whom. He couldn't have called her at a phone box, because how would he know which one and when. You could tell if someone's phoned you from one because of the pips and the traffic noise.


Yes, another detail not really captured in any 1986 vintage account.

I still don't get how the police found their way to the PoW or why, if somehow SF did know about this, nobody tried the pub. Unless, as suggested above, they did, and the calls KH misremembered later as from "Sarah" and a plod were in fact from Steph and MG and he just got the details wrong.

The calls received at 2pm approx, which might tie in with any escalation in Stevenage Rd. Pre SL reported missing & taken very seriously. Confusion logically possible ofc but not seen that way.

On POW I think wheels turned eventually as KH had reported chequebook missing to bank & police (?), Mon am, who called SL at work etc.

 

[lee sumner]

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.

SL vanished in fulham. no clues just gone. SB abducted by JC who left behind loads of evidence. why would he commit the perfect crime, then 1 year later the total opposite of a perfect crime. because it was not him. he is not mr kipper.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

I think @Lady Stoddart-West is absolutely on to something regarding a Friday to Sunday switch regarding the belongings. What stands out to me from re-reading AS’s book this weekend is how very little attention is paid to the issue by the author. This was the last date Suzy had with her boyfriend, just a couple of days before her disappearance, and she was going to collect these belongings on the day she went missing. Yet it’s covered in just one small paragraph (page 25):



Note how AS says they were lost. Yet later Leegood would say they were stolen. Why weren’t they handed in at, or placed outside of, Mossop’s, rather than left outside of the pub? And there’s no mention of how or when police became aware that Suzy’s belongings were at the pub.

On the time, you’d think that if a punter had found the belongings then they’d have handed them in at the bar, if the pub was still open, rather than leaving them outside to be found. This makes me think the relief landlord found them relatively late - Chinese takeaways often stay open until after last orders. Not sure when the PoW would’ve called time on a Sunday? I think it’s plausible the relief landlord was heading out between 10 and 11 at night.

It’s true memories can fade or become corrupted over time but in his conversations with DV the relief landlord is consistently very clear that he found these items on the Sunday night on his way out to

SL vanished in fulham. no clues just gone. SB abducted by JC who left behind loads of evidence. why would he commit the perfect crime, then 1 year later the total opposite of a perfect crime. because it was not him. he is not mr kipper

SL vanished in fulham. no clues just gone. SB abducted by JC who left behind loads of evidence. why would he commit the perfect crime, then 1 year later the total opposite of a perfect crime. because it was not him. he is not mr kipper.

Absolutely & one (good) reason I’m not totally convinced. It’s undeniable there’s some very good, even excellent, circumstantial evidence amongst the frankly implausible. We also don’t have all the facts.

 

[WestLondoner]

Yes, JC is circumstantially a great suspect but the shine comes off when you consider how he operated later, and try to reconcile that to 28/7/86.

 

[rvlvr]

There absolutely was a ‘fact’, not relating to abduction directly, AS did change as DL asked police & they agreed & AS duly did so. This we DO know. AS thought pretty inconsequential. My feeling it might not have been noted by later investigations & if so ‘Sunday’ became ‘Friday’ factually over time. It wasn’t thought to matter too much. Why does it matter when a few things were lost & when?

This is my thinking regarding the keys too. These things perhaps weren’t immediately considered very important, and over time assumptions and suppositions became hardened and entrenched.

On who knew about the pub, AS says Suzy was ‘preoccupied’ with finding her belongings. But did he deduce this based on statements made by her colleagues, or simply from her behaviour, eg the calls and plans she made to retrieve said belongings across the morning? It’s not clear to me.

In the 80s would your bank also have known where you worked and how to reach you there? I didn’t get a bank account until the 90s, I don’t think any of the banks I’ve used since then have ever had my employer’s contact details as well as my own. I wonder what the exact sequence of events was that morning? Did Suzy call her bank (perhaps leaving with them her work number in case they needed to reach her?), then the pub called the bank, then the bank called Suzy back using the number given? Or would the bank have had that number anyway, a sort of ‘in case of emergencies’ type of thing?

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

This is my thinking regarding the keys too. These things perhaps weren’t immediately considered very important, and over time assumptions and suppositions became hardened and entrenched.

On who knew about the pub, AS says Suzy was ‘preoccupied’ with finding her belongings. But did he deduce this based on statements made by her colleagues, or simply from her behaviour, eg the calls and plans she made to retrieve said belongings across the morning? It’s not clear to me.

In the 80s would your bank also have known where you worked and how to reach you there? I didn’t get a bank account until the 90s, I don’t think any of the banks I’ve used since then have ever had my employer’s contact details as well as my own. I wonder what the exact sequence of events was that morning? Did Suzy call her bank (perhaps leaving with them her work number in case they needed to reach her?), then the pub called the bank, then the bank called Suzy back using the number given? Or would the bank have had that number anyway, a sort of ‘in case of emergencies’ type of thing?

Yes, absolutely on keys. They were certain, possibly too certain, she went to 37 Shorrolds on a straightforward viewing, because of HR sighting etc. Who pretends & completely fabricates seeing someone being bundled into a van?..

The police did, appropriately, ask all the right questions & consider all angles on viewing, but a narrative quickly entrenched. As you say.

Will think on bank but, yes, the bank had your work details. SF knew on lost things in 86. But as you say, suggest, no memorable big deal.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

In the 80s would your bank also have known where you worked and how to reach you there?

Not sure about this. I had a bank account back then and I don't think I ever gave a works contact number. In fact, it was ages before I had a phone at all. I think I must've given my mother's number as a contact.

My version of events:

• KH telephoned bank to report chequebook.
• SJL telephoned bank to report chequebook missing, and to cancel it.
• On that call, bank told Sjl that chequebook was found.

 

[WestLondoner]

They asked you for a contact number and you could fill in any number you liked or none. I got a bank account as a student and had none.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

They asked you for a contact number and you could fill in any number you liked or none. I got a bank account as a student and had none.

Seems plausible enough that she did indeed give works number then.

 

[kes1972]

I've been asking myself the same question! I can't find anything at all useful in the AS book. DV goes to some trouble to track him down but I get the impression that his answers are evasive (perhaps understandably so). If he himself (NB that is) was not in during that Sunday evening, or out until quite late, there's no reason for Sjl to go to a phone box for privacy as she had a phone at home. I get the impression (and it's only an impression) that he did see Sjl, but much later in the evening.

We know she left her parents" at 9, and we know she returned to the flat earlier in the evening with her surfboard, but I don't think NBs whereabouts can be established.

Agree about the flatmate should have been in if she went out to use the phone, but we are only assuming she was going to use the phone and that may never have happened and the items may have Just been placed there as a red herring so to speak. Maybe too much emphasis on some things when really we are only guessing.

 

[kes1972]

Seems plausible enough that she did indeed give works number then.

SL vanished in fulham. no clues just gone. SB abducted by JC who left behind loads of evidence. why would he commit the perfect crime, then 1 year later the total opposite of a perfect crime. because it was not him. he is not mr kipper.

Agree, unless he had an accomplice who was savvy

 

[kes1972]

Agree, unless he had an accomplice who was savvy

I really could imagine a situation akin to clive barwell mo being what happened but for this to work you would have another fiesta, anyone able to find out if taggart had use of a white fiesta or superhire having one in use?

 

[Klclevi]

Regarding NB the interview with him dated 6.8.86 London Standard has him saying they stayed up chatting after she got home late in the evening. ( i posted this upthread a bit i think)

DV pg 92 has NB claiming he had no recollection of seeing her (which DV goes on to refer to article) . DV then says DL had a bee in her bonnet about the article because she thought it implied they went to bed together.

Its a little odd.

 

[Konstantin]

Regarding NB the interview with him dated 6.8.86 London Standard has him saying they stayed up chatting after she got home late in the evening. ( i posted this upthread a bit i think)

DV pg 92 has NB claiming he had no recollection of seeing her (which DV goes on to refer to article) . DV then says DL had a bee in her bonnet about the article because she thought it implied they went to bed together.

Its a little odd.


View attachment 649721

I'd trust this account by NB of what happened shortly after the events rather than DV's reporting. He doesn't say what time he saw her on the Sunday night but it seems he's someone who liked to go out and stay up late (like many 25 year olds).

It's interesting that he thinks Kipper might have said he was interested in buying her flat. So again the joint property deal raises it's head. Plus SL going on a date with someone who just sent her a card, when she already had a boyfriend suggests again she was open to meeting men and wasn't worried about her personal safety.

 

[Klclevi]

BTW I did not mean odd in terms of NB had any implication, more so that how you could forget something so high profile , the person you lived with 35 years later when you talked to DV. Surely this would be imprinted on your brain forever.

There is also the consideration of how many people had been in the flat viewing it as reported. Could be nothing, could be something. No evidence to support how any of these people were eliminated (AFAIK) other than the couple who actually purchased it in November (who had looked at it previously)

Why NB has never put this or the Valentines day card etc ref into DVs interview who knows. Maybe it was all cleared for all we know.

 

[Klclevi]

Apologies overlap there @Konstantin agree

The Monday night 28.7 he had been out to look at a flat and then gone for drinks in Wimbledon so was not home until after 11.
Normal 25 year old single activity I would say in Summer 86 London. No diff to here in Aus, some of us were just married , the rest were still partying abit after finishing Uni and getting first jobs etc and just settling down. Friends BBQs, drinks on a Sunday arvo, it was just what you did in Summer life. It was nothing to go out all weekend and rock up for work on Monday fresh as a daisy! not so much today.

Sorry off topic a bit.

 

[Konstantin]

Apologies overlap there @Konstantin agree

The Monday night 28.7 he had been out to look at a flat and then gone for drinks in Wimbledon so was not home until after 11.
Normal 25 year old single activity I would say in Summer 86 London. No diff to here in Aus, some of us were just married , the rest were still partying abit after finishing Uni and getting first jobs etc and just settling down. Friends BBQs, drinks on a Sunday arvo, it was just what you did in Summer life. It was nothing to go out all weekend and rock up for work on Monday fresh as a daisy! not so much today.

Sorry off topic a bit.

Haha yes being 25 is great.

I honestly suspect that he and others were put off by DV somehow and just didn't want to talk to him. It's about open investigation and high profile even now so that's probably part of it but I wonder if DV himself is off-putting. He should have got Caroline to do the interviews as she comes across well!

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Regarding NB the interview with him dated 6.8.86 London Standard has him saying they stayed up chatting after she got home late in the evening. ( i posted this upthread a bit i think)

DV pg 92 has NB claiming he had no recollection of seeing her (which DV goes on to refer to article) . DV then says DL had a bee in her bonnet about the article because she thought it implied they went to bed together.

Its a little odd.


View attachment 649721

This might fit again with AS referring to narrative changes DL asked the police & others to make. Some were sanctioned although they were NOT factually correct. This did happen. Reputation preservation…

Barley has also now said that not only did SL go out later but lied to AL about who she saw.

Although, of course, it’s 40 years distant & anyone can forget, but ‘lies’ or tweaks to narrative are even more easily forgotten. Note AL ‘forgetting’ what he said in the documentary.

Also we have NDAs that DL/PL asked some boyfriends to sign to factor in. If AL signed one perhaps he’s not free to tell the real truth about Sunday night?

It would have been good if DV had these sources with him in NB interview & gently cross referenced.

 

[kes1972]

BTW I did not mean odd in terms of NB had any implication, more so that how you could forget something so high profile , the person you lived with 35 years later when you talked to DV. Surely this would be imprinted on your brain forever.

There is also the consideration of how many people had been in the flat viewing it as reported. Could be nothing, could be something. No evidence to support how any of these people were eliminated (AFAIK) other than the couple who actually purchased it in November (who had looked at it previously)

Why NB has never put this or the Valentines day card etc ref into DVs interview who knows. Maybe it was all cleared for all we know.

Very strange that nb forgot anything, he lived with her was close same circle of friends, you would replay all kinds of scenarios looking for answers so to say he cannot remember i find odd.

 

[Officer Dibble]

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

But then at what point was the straw hat put on the back shelf of the car? Or was that a copy? If someone knew her well or had been following her they would have known/seen her habits re the straw hat. It could be easy for friends or family to say "yes that is her straw hat" when in fact it could be a close copy, in my opinion. JMO

Edited to ask again, do we know if the white fiesta VIN was checked?

Also edited to ask, were the office cars all white fiestas? Therefore did someone change the numberplates over? JMO MOO