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

[lee sumner]

The sale of Suzy's flat was being conducted by Sturgis Putney, not the Fulham branch where Suzy worked.

So if JC did as you suggested then Suzy wouldn't be there personally as it would be a representative of Sturgis Putney who would show him around the Disraeli Road premises.

interesting. i thought SL fulham branch was handling the sale. i just assumed she would be there to seal the deal. JC would not know sturgis putney were handling the sale. he would be thinking what i was thinking, it was a sturgis fulham sale, so its possible JC could have viewed SL flat thinking she would show up, but instead a different AE shows up for the viewing.

 

[kes1972]

Logistics.

While I believe there is a lot to be gained from trying to ascertain what the motive is behind any given unsolved murder case, I much prefer to look at the logistics of how a crime was able to take place. With many serial killers, there simply is no underlying fundamental reason; or "motive" for doing what they do, other than from pure enjoyment and self gratification.
It's precisely for that reason why I believe that rather than focusing primarily on the potential motive behind why SL was abducted and then murdered, I favour looking at exactly how the culprit was able to do what they did and how they evaded being caught out.
In the first instance, it doesn't matter "why," but rather "how" it all transpired. The "why" then becomes important further down the investigative line.

So, let's do exactly that, by asking the question; How was someone able to abduct SL and make her stay gone?

Let's start with the actual factual evidence. (putting any and every "eye witness" account to the side for a moment)


Evidence point 1...

SL's company car was found in Stevenage Road.

That's a definitely ascertained fact.

So, who put it there? (don't worry about "when" just yet)

The answer is either;
1) SL
2) the person who abducted her
3) an accomplice to the person who abducted her or,
4) someone unconnected to SL's disappearance.

Let's look at each of those 4 options based in conjunction with the actual evidence.

The car was found...

1) unlocked driver's side door
2) locked passenger side door
3) seat set back from SL's regular driving position; ergo, to accommodate someone taller
4) Handbrake off
5) SL's purse found inside
6) no keys

So, when we combine that factual data with the 4 viable options relating to "who" could have put the car there, we can then build a picture of statistical likelihood.

For example, let's take option 1; SL drove the car and left it in Stevenage Road?

Okay, but does that tie in with the list of 6 factual pieces of data from the other list?

No, it doesn't

Unless SL deliberately wanted to make herself disappear by faking her own abduction, then it makes no sense whatsoever for her to leave the car the way she did.

I think that based on overwhelming statistical likelihood; SL wasn't the person who drove the car to leave it in Stevenage Road across the road from number 123.

So that leaves option 2, 3, or 4.

Option 4; someone unrelated to the disappearance parked the car in Stevenage Road?

Well considering that the driver completely vanished and has never been found, then again, it's beyond the realms of probability for someone completely innocent to have left the car where it was found.

So, that leaves us with either option 2 or 3 as the correct answer.

Now the idea that there was more than one person involved with the abduction of SL, is something that cannot be either proven or disproven at this juncture.
However, based on the fact that only the driver's door was unlocked and the passenger door was locked, this suggests that only ONE person drove the car and parked it in Stevenage Road. Otherwise, BOTH the doors of the car would have been unlocked or locked. By having one door unlocked and the other locked, it strongly implies there having been only ONE driver.

Therefore, while there may have indeed been an accomplice, we can be almost certain that only 1 person actually drove the car to Stevenage Road
Therefore, the only person who could have viably parked the Fiesta in Stevenage Road, has to be either the abductor, or an accomplice.

That's a fact.

And now we're getting somewhere.


One useful tip when trying to flush out the truth, is that when looking at a case like the abduction of SL, don't think like a cop and be bound by restriction and limitation... but instead, think like the killer.
How did the killer manage to do what they did in a practical sense, regardless of any motive they may or may not of had.

Note that anything and everything that may or may not have happened the night before SL's disappearance, is wholly subjective and based on supposition and conjecture. It frankly leads us nowhere, and clouds the pathway to actually analysing the actual evidential data.

So,. now we have established that someone connected with SL's disappearance MUST have parked the white Fiesta where it was later found, it then opens up a much broader range of questions that need to be addressed.

Some of which I will continue with in my next post...

Just a thought, we cannot prove she was ever in the car, i think the purse was placed there to give that impression of her driving it. Then that means the abductor knew where her car was prior to the event and the call to view sr was placed knowing she would go to her car, then what really matters is what time was the call to arrange the viewing??

 

[kes1972]

From the original Crimewatch reconstruction filmed in August/September 1986, it's fairly clear that the manager of Sturgis is either lying, hiding something, or not telling us the whole truth.

The fact he states that he called the police at "5.30pm" to notify them of SL's disappearance (after having spoken to SL's mother on the phone) does not make sense, because if he had looked at SL's diary on the table, he would have seen the 6pm appointment.

What should of happened, would have been someone going to the 6pm location which was around a 5 minute drive from Sturgis Fulham, to see if SL turned up and/or to talk to the woman who was expecting SL to meet her at 6pm (based on her diary)

And yet, despite MG going to 37SR to check to see if SL had somehow got herself "locked in," he fails to mention the 6pm appointment.

Why?

It's almost as though he knew she wouldn't be making it to the 6pm appointment.


The POW is also an odd aspect, because it ties in with the same 6pm timing of SL's diary appointment.

At some point someone must have contacted the woman who SL was meant to be meeting at 6pm to let them know that SL was missing, but surely MG would have waited until he knew that SL hadn't turned up for her 6pm appointment BEFORE he called the police?

The timing of when he called the police is also something that needs to be definitively confirmed, because in some instances it seems that the timing of the call to the police changes considerably. Why is this?

MG's appearance on camera is dubious and if you really look at him and break down what he says word for word, it seems fairly apparent that he's not being totally honest in what he's saying.

His repeated action of licking his lips stems from nervousness, but also indicates deceit and concealment.

Has it been confirmed that MG never left the office on the day of SL's disappearance?

And if he did, where did he go for lunch?


Watch his "performance" closely and his countenance, his reactions, his micro expressions, they all tell us something isn't quite right with what he's saying.

The way he looks at the camera and holds the glance just after he's licked his lips for a 2nd time, is also an odd thing to do, because his words don't tally with what his face is telling us.

The licking of the lips is also a subconscious physical reaction to a feeling of enjoyment or excitement. In the context of SL having disappeared, I would assume that this wasn't the overriding emotion going through his mind at the time.


All conjecture of course, and bears no direct relevance to exactly "how" SL was abducted.

Also agree on everything but people just cannot see it, no one saw her leave the office, no one saw her get in her car in fact no one saw her again or can verify they definitively did, her purse in the car suggests she used it, 2 fiestas double parked?? Mg going to sr with female and later talking to hr is suggestive,so many many questionable moments and yet no one finds it believable

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Also agree on everything but people just cannot see it, no one saw her leave the office, no one saw her get in her car in fact no one saw her again or can verify they definitively did, her purse in the car suggests she used it, 2 fiestas double parked?? Mg going to sr with female and later talking to hr is suggestive,so many many questionable moments and yet no one finds it believable

The BW sighting is very credible - she remained/remains totally certain in it was SL she saw.

 

[kes1972]

If the police have evidence she went elsewhere after her parents, & it would seem they do, it’s not conjecture. Also SL seemingly lied to AL about who she was with at this time (Barley recent podcast) surely this is important to bottom out. The ‘friends’ she said she saw to AL said they did not see her.

A lot points to her seeing expat perhaps, & this is surmise, but police were quick to get Interpol involved re: questioning him.

He was cleared. To solve, an accurate timeline is important & it’s unclear here. Especially, as there’s some, arguably good, evidence for missing things on Sunday versus Friday.

Al would have been raging by this point!

 

[kes1972]

He could have been searching the floor for something dropped that would incriminate him, moving the seat to do so. I don't really think it's possible to exclude this. The car does look like it was stopped or abandoned rather than parked, but the seat position could have been changed for a different purpose.

I knew what you meant



Well, the thing is, they did. DC Andrew Laptew visited him in 1979, noted the resemblance and recommended he be brought in; his boss told him if he said 'photofit' one more time, he'd be on traffic duty (I always picture the 'Say "What?" again' scene from Pulp Fiction here). Sutcliffe's mate Trevor Birdsall also dobbed him in, in November 1980.

There was a complicating factor, which was that after September 1979 and the hoax tapes, the police didn't bother with anyone unless he had a Wearside accent. A woman who reported being followed by a man who looked like Sutcliffe and had a Bradford accent was told by the desk sergeant that the Ripper was a Geordie. And so on.

I think that's more or less what did happen. If she failed to keep that appointment it would mean she was not free and at liberty. He probably just mis-spoke.

What's frustratingly absent is the detail of whether and how he got into 37SR. The police said nobody had been inside that day. If MG had then you wonder why the police said otherwise.

He went next door to Crocodile Tears but nobody seems sure when. If he was still there when she left then she would have had to pass his desk to get the keys.

Presumably somewhere nearby. If I were abducting someone and wanted to hide the car I reckon I'd steal or have made the plates of an innocent white Fiesta and fit those. There's no sign of anyone having done this though.

I very much doubt that. One, it was on with a different office and two, she's got a conflict of interest. She could, for example, fail to show other properties to potential buyers so as to direct them towards her own. I would think policy would be that she can't hawk her own property.

They did not have to switch the plates of that fiesta if they put them on another similar fiesta and left the door unlocked, sl would have walked up to it and realised the car was open, this would mean it was work colleagues though, put her car on sr already have her hat in the other car force her in and drive off , ( van saying dangerous driving by fiesta) later put hat and purse in her car on sr ( reason for seat back- to put hat back) mg was who was seen on sr with female,