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

[Clairybums]

Great post Claire!

Ah I see, so that would mean that it's almost certain that the timing of what your father saw, was likely to have been circa 2.35pm-2.40pm; ergo, around 5 minutes or so before SL was seen driving up Fulham Palace Road with the suited man in her Fiesta.

So that would mean that SL drove to Dorncliffe Road and waited for the suited man to go into the basement flat of a known drug dealer, and then drive off again after the suited man returned.

Why would SL do that?

It seems almost certain that at this stage, she wasn't under any duress.

So what does this tell us?

Well it certainly opens up a world of possibilities that's for sure.


There was reported to have been a fierce argument overheard by someone who got into a taxi cab just around the corner from Stevenage Road, but I can't recall the timing for that.

Could SL have been arguing with the suited man over his intention to go and see the drug dealer in Dorncliffe Road?

And why would SL drive him to Dorncliffe Road in the first place?

So many more questions have arisen here.


Could the man have payed for drugs? Or did he go there to collect the murder weapon?

Of course, there's no evidence as to whether a murder weapon was used.

It's a wonderfully perplexing riddle to solve for sure.

Thank you Rookie D,

Yes, that sounds right to me. I'm still going to try to verify by finding the article I read.

I am not sure how well known the neighbour would have been outside of his circle or us neighbours. It may be possible that SL wouldn't have been aware of anything related to the basement flat only maybe the man asked if he could stop off there for whatever reason he might give.

The different sightings and timings for Stevenage Road are baffling me. I think I need to make myself a timeline or chart that I can refer to. For some reason, in my head, I'm thinking they started in Shorrolds Road then headed over in a detour to Dorncliffe Road, like... "I just need to pop in to see a friend quickly" or "I need to check on one of my other properties" (if he was indeed trying to make out he was an affluent house buyer).

I thought Dorncliffe Road was before Stevenage Road? The problem is, there has been so much different information over the years it's all kind of melding together. My brain doesn't process as well as it used to, it tends to stick to the things I know or remember.

I think I might see if I can request my father's witness statement. They can only say no. Apparently, from what I've read, they are usually more favourable towards family members than journalists but they can also say no too. All this uncertainty is going to drive me nuts.

I'll contact them when I've had some proper sleep.

 

[Clairybums]

It seems to me that once the police ruled out the 2.45pm sighting by BW of SL driving her Fiesta up Fulham Palace Road, they then dismissed or discounted any other sighting, because they believed the Fiesta had stayed stationary in Stevenage Road the entire time.

And it's precisely this p**s poor policing that tends to lend itself to scores and scores of solvable murder cases becoming cold cases.

Aside from lack of definitive evidence; poor policing procedure is the 2nd biggest reason for many cases becoming cold.

However, as I've said previously; I believe that the Fiesta was MOVED and then driven back and parked up in the SAME spot in Stevenage Road. This occurred sometime between 2pm and 3.30pm; ergo, THIS is the abduction window.

At 2.45pm SL is alive and well.

The sighting in Dorncliffe Road then occurs during the SAME time frame; ergo, between 2pm and 3.30pm.

By the time the car is then parked BACK in Stevenage Road at 3.30pm, SL has been abducted. And the reason why the car is then parked BACK in Stevenage Road?

Because it acts as the perfect distraction and misdirection.

The police spent so much time trying to work around the car being parked in Stevenage Road, they didn't consider that the abduction occurred just AFTER BW saw SL driving up Fulham Palace Road.

BW was the ONLY witness on that day from 12.30pm who actually KNEW SL.

BW's sighting is the most reliable source, and yet the police chose to favour the sightings made by the 3 MEN in Shorrolds Road?

I think that may speak for itself. A hint of misogyny perhaps?

It wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Clairybums]

Absolutely this!!

My father, when he was 100% sure about something, would not budge. That's what angered him so much. You know when you know you've seen something and especially if it is something important and the people around you don't take it seriously. I don't think I helped that much either. I remember the day I went to visit him and not really focusing but I wish I had. Had I not been so young, if I had been say in my 30s I would have probably marched down to the police station myself on his behalf. I just didn't have that backbone or strength when I was 20.

I wish SL parents didn't have to pass not knowing what happened to their child.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Hi @Clairybums and welcome!

Thank you for such interesting & thoughtful posts & additions to the thread.

I have a personal interest in the case & have been researching for many years.

Below is the last photograph of SL taken on Sat 26th July 1986 at a 21st Birthday in Surrey. Even accounting for bad lighting SL is a subtle blonde at best. It was shown on Crimewatch & verified as the last ever photo.

Witnesses at Shorrolds Road were puzzled as said the woman they saw was very blonde. Your father’s statement/observation matches theirs. This is very interesting.

There are those that believe 37 Shorrolds was a rendezvous & not a viewing. There are those that think she (SL) was never there at all. What seems not to be in dispute is someone was outside or in the vicinity, likely a man & woman & that woman was blonde enough for the average man to notice.

I haven’t had time to fully absorb all your posts, but will do now. Have you read AS’s ‘The Suzy Lamplugh Story?’ 1988.

 

[Rookie D]

Hi @Clairybums and welcome!

Thank you for such interesting & thoughtful posts & additions to the thread.

I have a personal interest in the case & have been researching for many years.

Below is the last photograph of SL taken on Sat 26th July 1986 at a 21st Birthday in Surrey. Even accounting for bad lighting SL is a subtle blonde at best. It was shown on Crimewatch & verified as the last ever photo.

Witnesses at Shorrolds Road were puzzled as said the woman they saw was very blonde. Your father’s statement/observation matches theirs. This is very interesting.

There are those that believe 37 Shorrolds was a rendezvous & not a viewing. There are those that think she (SL) was never there at all. What seems not to be in dispute is someone was outside or in the vicinity, likely a man & woman & that woman was blonde enough for the average man to notice.

I haven’t had time to fully absorb all your posts, but will do now. Have you read AS’s ‘The Suzy Lamplugh Story?’ 1988.

I do find it odd that even though SL clearly has blonde highlights/lowlights in her hair in this photo, she still looks dark haired.

Her primary hair colour in this photo is dark brown.

 

[Konstantin]

Hi @Clairybums and welcome!

Thank you for such interesting & thoughtful posts & additions to the thread.

I have a personal interest in the case & have been researching for many years.

Below is the last photograph of SL taken on Sat 26th July 1986 at a 21st Birthday in Surrey. Even accounting for bad lighting SL is a subtle blonde at best. It was shown on Crimewatch & verified as the last ever photo.

Witnesses at Shorrolds Road were puzzled as said the woman they saw was very blonde. Your father’s statement/observation matches theirs. This is very interesting.

There are those that believe 37 Shorrolds was a rendezvous & not a viewing. There are those that think she (SL) was never there at all. What seems not to be in dispute is someone was outside or in the vicinity, likely a man & woman & that woman was blonde enough for the average man to notice.

I haven’t had time to fully absorb all your posts, but will do now. Have you read AS’s ‘The Suzy Lamplugh Story?’ 1988.

She's really not blonde at all in that photo. Certainly not very blonde. Maaaaybe dark blonde if the lighting was poor. But I'd say brunette.

It's not unreasonable that the blonde woman seen on Shorrolds was not SL and nothing to do with her at all. People walk up and down streets all day long.

 

[Rookie D]

Claire, may I ask; are you aware that 10 Dorncliffe Road is a Leasehold property?

Interestingly, 10 Dorncliffe Road has been sold at least 5 times since 1995.

It would be interesting to discover who the Freeholder is for that property, and who the estate agent is/was who dealt with those sales.

Being a Leasehold property, it would generally speaking, exchange hands more frequently than a Freehold property of a similar specification.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

She's really not blonde at all in that photo. Certainly not very blonde. Maaaaybe dark blonde if the lighting was poor. But I'd say brunette.

It's not unreasonable that the blonde woman seen on Shorrolds was not SL and nothing to do with her at all. People walk up and down streets all day long.

The BMW struggling couple, witness forward in 2000, (but said earlier in 1986 too) said he was confused at first as the woman he saw was blonde. Then we have AS P.76 “ND & ND - two men, same initials - each added a point that gave their evidence greater plausibility. The girl they had seen, they told the police had lighter hair than the pictures of SL showed”.

Could it be, in reality, her hair looked as attached? IME men not great at noticing subtlety in blonde hair colouring - Marilyn Monroe a ‘blonde’ Lol

If we’re being pedantic about it no sun to enhance either, not a sunny day!

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

@Clairybums something that caught my eye in one of your posts was your father noticed the couple looked too smart or incongruous re: going into the property, compared to the the usual people in vicinity (?)

(ND) "He thought that she and the man..., both looked TOO SMART to be interested in this particular 128k house".

On the hair colour, DL was quick to say that SL had highlights on the Fri and was in fact blonde, possibly in the hope that these sightings were all correct (?) Understandably she wanted the pieces to fit.

The house was shabby and a bit run down so odd to me than Noel D - P.74 AS - stated the opposite to the other ND He noticed no 37 Shorrolds: "he noticed the 'For Sale' sign as he particularly liked the house"

 

[GTB72]

I do find it odd that even though SL clearly has blonde highlights/lowlights in her hair in this photo, she still looks dark haired.

Her primary hair colour in this photo is dark brown.

View attachment 651987

I am 60 years of age. Back in the day at Primary school you would get your photo taken every year to catalogue your development.

The only problem being was that the lighting was so poor it always looked as if you had red hair in the finished photo. And I wasn't the only one.

Could that be the case here? Poor lighting or maybe taken on a Polaroid camera? Those cameras weren't the best in my recollection. SJL certainly doesn't look blonde here.

 

[WestLondoner]

Pretty jawdropping to think we don't really know what she looked like. She was described immediately as a blonde, but then you look at the 12-week Crimewatch reconstruction and she's depicted as a full-on brunette.

 

[kes1972]

Unless you can provide some evidential connection between the parties then no credible line of enquiry exists. You are simply flying a kite and adding to the general obfuscation surrounding this case.

No different than people saying jc then?