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

[kes1972]

Police behind the times, the truth should be in plain sight the people come forward or they do not, their way of doing things clearly did not work!

Things clearly point in one direction here and it is not jc it is the bf

 

[Konstantin]

The bit I struggle with is how one moment there's an altercation and next moment someone making phone calls to the pub. If this was coerced I can't see how, and did Kipper really come out equipped with lots of 5p and 10p coins for 'phone boxes?

Many thanks for posting this KC. So we now know contemporaneously and not solely from DL that SJL was at home. If they chatted about inconsequential stuff for "a couple of hours", they can't have started to do so much later than 10pm, given he was planning to leave for work by 7.45.

So when did this supposed call with AL happen? She clearly did not make it from the flat. If she made it from a call box to AL before getting home latest 10pm, he'd know from the pips and the background noise that she was in a call box. So he would remember who had called whom, contrary to what was later said.

Where's the room in the timeline for her to have been anywhere else than her parents' place? Is this impossible phone call the thing only the perp would know had not happened?

AS claims the call happened around 22:15, so they can't have talked for long if so. Maybe AL did call her at the flat and it was a brief call and NB just can't recall it as it was so routine/ordinary. I think it would make sense for AL to try her at her flat, to see if she was really at home, though he doesn't seem the jealous type at all.

 

[Konstantin]

The bit I struggle with is how one moment there's an altercation and next moment someone making phone calls to the pub. If this was coerced I can't see how, and did Kipper really come out equipped with lots of 5p and 10p coins for 'phone boxes?

I don't see how you could coerce her to phone a pub landlord, who wasn't expecting her until much later, and pretend to be someone else. There is no point to it. As the police went to the pub that evening, they knew she had lost her stuff there i.e. someone told them i.e. that must have been Sturgis colleagues and if they knew she went there and were looking for them they prob did call the pub asking for her. And KH mixed up Sarah and Stephanie. I think the mistake is thinking that if AS does not record something then it never happened but the reality is, his account is not an exhaustive list of everything that happened on that day.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

AS claims the call happened around 22:15, so they can't have talked for long if so. Maybe AL did call her at the flat and it was a brief call and NB just can't recall it as it was so routine/ordinary. I think it would make sense for AL to try her at her flat, to see if she was really at home, though he doesn't seem the jealous type at all.

If she indeed went out post parents & lied about who she was seeing to AL (Barley) there’s a small window for call at 10:15pm if received at flat. (?)

It’s interesting to have this ‘going out later’ rumour seemingly confirmed as suspicion always there.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

I don't see how you could coerce her to phone a pub landlord, who wasn't expecting her until much later, and pretend to be someone else. There is no point to it. As the police went to the pub that evening, they knew she had lost her stuff there i.e. someone told them i.e. that must have been Sturgis colleagues and if they knew she went there and were looking for them they prob did call the pub asking for her. And KH mixed up Sarah and Stephanie. I think the mistake is thinking that if AS does not record something then it never happened but the reality is, his account is not an exhaustive list of everything that happened on that day.

Agree the most plausible answer to calls is a KH mistake/muddle on timing. The approx 2pm timing (before anyone worried or thinking her missing) and jarring oddity of them resonated however…if more as DV recounted especially.

 

[rvlvr]

Yes. Barley on the True Criminals podcast talking of Suzy having had a ‘clandestine’ meeting with someone on the Sunday evening ties up some of the loose ends, for me. Evidently, there’s a gap in the timeline. I suspect her nearest and dearest had their own theories as to where she’d been and with whom, Diana (rightly or wrongly) likely felt that this would’ve reflected poorly on Suzy, hence a story was possibly concocted that Suzy spent a considerable period of time at her flat with the lodger NB, and that her belongings were lost at the pub on the Friday after having had dinner at the restaurant next door, rather than on the Sunday.

Why AL later said the belongings were stolen from the pub, I’ve no idea. Got a little carried away, perhaps? I think he was being truthful when he told DV that actually, he and Suzy never went to the Prince of Wales. The relief landlord was fairly clear in his conversations with DV that it was he who found the belongings, and that he found them on the Sunday evening. NB was coy with DV at times but he was also talkative at others (eg being quite critical of police, ‘keystone cops’, etc), which makes me think he knows a lot more than he let on. I suspect most of the key characters in this story know a bit more, actually, but we can’t really blame them for being coy, especially when confronted by an ex-cop like DV, @Konstantin covers this well in an earlier post I think.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Yes. Barley on the True Criminals podcast talking of Suzy having had a ‘clandestine’ meeting with someone on the Sunday evening ties up some of the loose ends, for me. Evidently, there’s a gap in the timeline. I suspect her nearest and dearest had their own theories as to where she’d been and with whom, Diana (rightly or wrongly) likely felt that this would’ve reflected poorly on Suzy, hence a story was possibly concocted that Suzy spent a considerable period of time at her flat with the lodger NB, and that her belongings were lost at the pub on the Friday after having had dinner at the restaurant next door, rather than on the Sunday.

Why AL later said the belongings were stolen from the pub, I’ve no idea. Got a little carried away, perhaps? I think he was being truthful when he told DV that actually, he and Suzy never went to the Prince of Wales. The relief landlord was fairly clear in his conversations with DV that it was he who found the belongings, and that he found them on the Sunday evening. NB was coy with DV at times but he was also talkative at others (eg being quite critical of police, ‘keystone cops’, etc), which makes me think he knows a lot more than he let on. I suspect most of the key characters in this story know a bit more, actually, but we can’t really blame them for being coy, especially when confronted by an ex-cop like DV, @Konstantin covers this well in an earlier post I think.

Exactly. Agree & we do have this factual change on timeline/the ‘fact’ too. My view is so much points to a Sunday to Friday switch & if police have sanctioned this (& we know they did on something similar) of course AL can speak freely about Friday not Sunday.

Also NDAs in place, apparently for some, re: ‘true facts’.

Pushing that further I feel this 10:15pm call is a totally fictitious addition too. ESPECIALLY as it was all really about confirming SL DIDN’T know expat well at all! Why was this relevant or urgent to this call at this time (?) She did know the expat…Nothing to see here!
When my suspicion, reading between lines, is SL always saw the expat on Sun night, Barley’s recent remarks have confirmed some of my surmises. She saw someone & initially lied to AL about it.

The fact AL can’t recall this final call well then and/or want to discuss & NB confused is that they oked at time a fiction to prevent anyone finding out SL went off to see another man. No biggie…(Perhaps). Or so thought at time…

 

[Eastend Eagle]

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.

SJL had reportedly been previously involved in a relationship with someone from the West Country. Maybe Cannan was correct in his view that SL was killed by a Bristol-based businessman and this perhaps extremely clever criminal having killed SB then tried to implicate Cannan in the Lamplugh case by selling him SB's car having changed the numberplate in the way that it was.
There was also a lot of evidence pointing to Cannan in the Sandra Court murder but just as in the SJL case he wasn't charged in connection with SC. Had someone attempted to implicate him in this case too?

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

SJL had reportedly been previously involved in a relationship with someone from the West Country. Maybe Cannan was correct in his view that SL was killed by a Bristol-based businessman and this perhaps extremely clever criminal having killed SB then tried to implicate Cannan in the Lamplugh case by selling him SB's car having changed the numberplate in the way that it was.
There was also a lot of evidence pointing to Cannan in the Sandra Court murder but just as in the SJL case he wasn't charged in connection with SC. Had someone attempted to implicate him in this case too?

JC came up with an elaborate, conspiracy theory around ‘Hodgeson/Hodgkinson’ mysteriously mini seller & we have to wonder why JC wanted a tatty, broken rust bucket at all (?) He’d also asked about Bristol car auction venues before his questioning in police station. He knew nothing of logistics, location & whole story full of holes. He also didn’t attend auction - if true - very unlikely - with enough money to buy anything really but all sorts of excuses of course.