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

[lee sumner]

AL, adam leegood, NB, nick bryant, NH, nigel hindle, SF, stephanie flower, BW, barbara whitfield, DH, dave hodgkinson, MG, mark gurdon. these are all players in the lamplugh case. hope it helps.

there are more initials, names in the case. if you want more let me know.

 

[lee sumner]

Can someone please send me a list of initials and their real names. I'm struggling to keep up. Thank you

if you need more let me know. there are obviously more names, initials involved in the lamplugh case.

 

[rvlvr]

Also, there is an article I am looking for that discussed a theory police had re: a few people being involved.

Was this in the original investigation or the 2000 one? I know it was floated as a theory in 2000, this Guardian article mentions it (the quote here is from DS Shaun Sawyer):

"There are some existing suspects we will reinterview and there are some new suspects. We have to consider that more than one person may have been involved."

Mr Sawyer added that police would be looking to establish links between the suspects.

The article later discusses Gilly Paige and Norton Barracks:

Gilly Paige, a former girlfriend of the convicted murderer John Cannan, told police that he confessed to raping and killing Lamplugh at the disused barracks.

In December Diana Lamplugh, Suzy's mother, said she had received new information that corroborated Ms Paige's story.

Of course, we know now that Diana was being, shall we say, economical with the truth here!

 

[Rookie D]

So, why did the man who abducted (and likely murdered) SL, choose to park her white Fiesta next to the garage opposite 123 Stevenage Road?

Well let's hypothesise for a moment and go with the idea that SL drove to Shorrold's Road in the first instance, and not to Stevenage Road.

This would mean that either WJ lied, was wrong about her timings, or she observed another white car entirely.

Well, it's unlikely she lied., because this would be nonsensical and akin to some crackpot conspiracy theory.

So that leaves either her being wrong about her timing, or the car she saw being another white car entirely.

Well, considering that it is relatively common for witnesses (in general) to be off about their timings, then it could be said that this is the most likely reason for WJ's observation being incorrect; ergo, she couldn't have seen SL's car at 12.45pm if SL had gone straight to Shorrolds Road from the Sturgis office.

However, there's also the possibility that WJ was correct in that she had indeed seen a white car parked opposite her house next to the garage.

And this is precisely what has confused investigators since the July '86.

So, how can it be possible for SL to have driven her car to Stevenage Road for it to be seen by WJ at 12.45pm, and yet SL is seen outside 37SR at 12.50pm?

Well, the only way that's possible is if SL drove to Stevenage Road first, and then got into ANOTHER vehicle to then be driven to Shorrolds Road and get there 5 minutes later.

This forms the basis of my proposed chronological timeline that I presented upthread.

However, I now believe I am wrong.

Something has never really felt right about the idea of SL going to Stevenage Road from the office first, and then appearing in Shorrolds Road just 5 minutes later.

Again, this could just be a case of mistaken timing issues relating to what each witness claimed they saw at a particular time.

However, variations in timing aside, it's the chronology of events that simply just doesn't work, and it's on this basis that it seems rather apparent that SL didn't go to Stevenage Road before she went to Shorrolds Road.

But we still have the issue with what WJ claimed she saw; that white car opposite her house.

Well, I think this perhaps answers that particular conundrum...

That car is NOT Suzy Lamplugh's white Fiesta.

And yet, it's parked in virtually the same spot that SL's Fiesta was found.


But this car IS Suzy Lamplugh's car...

And yet BOTH cars were SEEN in the Crimewatch reconstruction footage.

But as I said upthread; only the close up of SL's car was used FOR the active reconstruction itself; the street shot was used as just a generic shot of the street.

So, what's going on here?

Well, it seems apparent to me that when the production team filmed a few still street shots, they inadvertently caught the OTHER white car in the frame.

This means that that there was indeed ANOTHER white car parked in Stevenage Road and which appears in that street shot with other cars parked up in situ.

But here's the crux of what I'm trying to say; and which takes me back slightly to my initial question at the top of this post...

Why did the man who abducted SL choose to park up her car AFTER the abduction in the SAME SPOT that ANOTHER white car had been; and which would later be seen again when the Crimewatch production team inadvertently captured it in their shot?

Well, firstly the abductor must have either SEEN another car there, or must have KNOWN another car was parked their BEFORE the abduction took place.

In turn, that implies that the abductor had familiarity with not only Stevenage Road, but also with the fact that there was another white car that had parked in that exact spot previously.

It does make one consider whether the white car belonged to the abductor, whether he was local to Stevenage Road, or whether he SAW the other car parked there when he and SL were allegedly seen "around lunchtime" in Stevenage Road by the woman who lived at 139 Stevenage Road.

It therefore seems viable to me that after Shorrolds Road, SL drove Mr Kipper to Stevenage Road, where she parked her white Fiesta further along (south) Stevenage Road, and that as they were BOTH seen walking north up Stevenage Road by the same witness, the abductor noticed the other white car parked outside the garage opposite 123 Stevenage Road, and simply made a mental note of it for when he late drove SL's car BACK to Stevenage Road AFTER the abduction had taken place.

What this also means however, is that because SL and Mr Kipper were later seen by BW, that it would appear that Mr Kipper did not have his vehicle available for when SL was driving him around Fulham; presumably to look at other properties.

The evidence DOES support the idea that SL WAS in Stevenage Road at some point AFTER Shorrolds Road, and that the abductor chose Stevenage Road for a reason.

There was also a Taxi Cab driver who lived yards from 123 Stevenage Road, and who claimed to have seen the white car parked by the garage just "before 2pm."

But it would appear that his sighting was of the same OTHER white car that WJ had seen at 12.45pm.

Of course, this would mean that at some point BEFORE the Fiesta was found at 10pm, that the other white car needed to have MOVED from that exact position in order for the abductor to have been able to have parked SL's Fiesta in the exact same spot AFTER the abduction had taken place.

So, who did this other white car belong to?

Well, it must have belonged to someone, and the fact that the abductor chose to park SL's Fiesta in the same spot that the other car had been parked in previously, must mean something.

And IMO, this could be the key top the entire case.

It also brings into question whether WJ saw the other white car at 3.30pm, or whether SL's Fiesta had been dumped at this point already?

Of course, if SL's Fiesta was only parked up there AFTER WJ's 2nd sighting of a white car at 3.30pm, it could mean that SL was abducted much later than we all realise.

But WHY would the abductor drive BACK to Stevenage road to dump SL's car?

Well, to either get back into his own car parked close by, or to try and deliberately confuse the investigation by making the police think that her Fiesta had been parked there all day from 12.45pm.

In some ways, it works as the perfect distraction and slight of hand.

Lots more to consider here

 

[Konstantin]

Was this in the original investigation or the 2000 one? I know it was floated as a theory in 2000, this Guardian article mentions it (the quote here is from DS Shaun Sawyer):



The article later discusses Gilly Paige and Norton Barracks:



Of course, we know now that Diana was being, shall we say, economical with the truth here!

If more than one person was involved, it does seem to point to the possibility that this was personal to SL and she knew at least one of them. It's striking and frustrating that the police have never gotten to the bottom of exactly what her lunchtime appointment was on that day.

It does remind me a lot of the Claudia Lawrence case, where the answer probably does lie in her personal connections, probably more than one person involved at least in covering up what happened, and a victim with a more colourful private life than you'd expect, a mother in denial and a tendency to extreme secrecy and compartmentalization.

With SL there's the business aspect and the breadcrumbs about her going on "dates" with wealthy men that were arranged for her by a friend who was later a prolific sex writer/"therapist". Did that friend collect young women like SL?

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

@rvlvr 2000 investigation. Thank you for posting that article, I think that may have been the one.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

@Konstantin Here we have DL, a few months later saying she knew who killed her daughter & where & why. She couldn’t say who as ‘libellous’. “There are people who stand to gain, I have my theory”

In answer to “did she have any worries?” (SL):

“She had lost her diary on Friday night and had been bothered about selling her flat as people kept letting her down”

Note the ‘strings attached’ deal is studiously avoided here, again. It almost certainly had some part to play in SL going missing & police, as we know, were angry not to be immediately informed.

Friday night for eve diary lost does feel like a white lie from all evidence we have, and SL presumably needed to sell her flat to do the deal hence her worries here (?)

When you factor in her uncle’s comments too about someone pressurising her too…

DL was understandably trying to protect SL & at first I think everyone thought her private life had nothing to do with her disappearance. Problem was, it almost certainly did.

 

[kes1972]

thanks for info, regarding pay structure. i have always been curious about the 3 grand commision SL was expecting. now iam starting to understand how EA worked back in the 1980s.

So, why did the man who abducted (and likely murdered) SL, choose to park her white Fiesta next to the garage opposite 123 Stevenage Road?

Well let's hypothesise for a moment and go with the idea that SL drove to Shorrold's Road in the first instance, and not to Stevenage Road.

This would mean that either WJ lied, was wrong about her timings, or she observed another white car entirely.

Well, it's unlikely she lied., because this would be nonsensical and akin to some crackpot conspiracy theory.

So that leaves either her being wrong about her timing, or the car she saw being another white car entirely.

Well, considering that it is relatively common for witnesses (in general) to be off about their timings, then it could be said that this is the most likely reason for WJ's observation being incorrect; ergo, she couldn't have seen SL's car at 12.45pm if SL had gone straight to Shorrolds Road from the Sturgis office.

However, there's also the possibility that WJ was correct in that she had indeed seen a white car parked opposite her house next to the garage.

And this is precisely what has confused investigators since the July '86.

So, how can it be possible for SL to have driven her car to Stevenage Road for it to be seen by WJ at 12.45pm, and yet SL is seen outside 37SR at 12.50pm?

Well, the only way that's possible is if SL drove to Stevenage Road first, and then got into ANOTHER vehicle to then be driven to Shorrolds Road and get there 5 minutes later.

This forms the basis of my proposed chronological timeline that I presented upthread.

However, I now believe I am wrong.

Something has never really felt right about the idea of SL going to Stevenage Road from the office first, and then appearing in Shorrolds Road just 5 minutes later.

Again, this could just be a case of mistaken timing issues relating to what each witness claimed they saw at a particular time.

However, variations in timing aside, it's the chronology of events that simply just doesn't work, and it's on this basis that it seems rather apparent that SL didn't go to Stevenage Road before she went to Shorrolds Road.

But we still have the issue with what WJ claimed she saw; that white car opposite her house.

Well, I think this perhaps answers that particular conundrum...


View attachment 653739
View attachment 653740

That car is NOT Suzy Lamplugh's white Fiesta.

And yet, it's parked in virtually the same spot that SL's Fiesta was found.


But this car IS Suzy Lamplugh's car...

View attachment 653742

And yet BOTH cars were SEEN in the Crimewatch reconstruction footage.

But as I said upthread; only the close up of SL's car was used FOR the active reconstruction itself; the street shot was used as just a generic shot of the street.

So, what's going on here?

Well, it seems apparent to me that when the production team filmed a few still street shots, they inadvertently caught the OTHER white car in the frame.

This means that that there was indeed ANOTHER white car parked in Stevenage Road and which appears in that street shot with other cars parked up in situ.

But here's the crux of what I'm trying to say; and which takes me back slightly to my initial question at the top of this post...

Why did the man who abducted SL choose to park up her car AFTER the abduction in the SAME SPOT that ANOTHER white car had been; and which would later be seen again when the Crimewatch production team inadvertently captured it in their shot?

Well, firstly the abductor must have either SEEN another car there, or must have KNOWN another car was parked their BEFORE the abduction took place.

In turn, that implies that the abductor had familiarity with not only Stevenage Road, but also with the fact that there was another white car that had parked in that exact spot previously.

It does make one consider whether the white car belonged to the abductor, whether he was local to Stevenage Road, or whether he SAW the other car parked there when he and SL were allegedly seen "around lunchtime" in Stevenage Road by the woman who lived at 139 Stevenage Road.

It therefore seems viable to me that after Shorrolds Road, SL drove Mr Kipper to Stevenage Road, where she parked her white Fiesta further along (south) Stevenage Road, and that as they were BOTH seen walking north up Stevenage Road by the same witness, the abductor noticed the other white car parked outside the garage opposite 123 Stevenage Road, and simply made a mental note of it for when he late drove SL's car BACK to Stevenage Road AFTER the abduction had taken place.

What this also means however, is that because SL and Mr Kipper were later seen by BW, that it would appear that Mr Kipper did not have his vehicle available for when SL was driving him around Fulham; presumably to look at other properties.

The evidence DOES support the idea that SL WAS in Stevenage Road at some point AFTER Shorrolds Road, and that the abductor chose Stevenage Road for a reason.

There was also a Taxi Cab driver who lived yards from 123 Stevenage Road, and who claimed to have seen the white car parked by the garage just "before 2pm."

But it would appear that his sighting was of the same OTHER white car that WJ had seen at 12.45pm.

Of course, this would mean that at some point BEFORE the Fiesta was found at 10pm, that the other white car needed to have MOVED from that exact position in order for the abductor to have been able to have parked SL's Fiesta in the exact same spot AFTER the abduction had taken place.

So, who did this other white car belong to?

Well, it must have belonged to someone, and the fact that the abductor chose to park SL's Fiesta in the same spot that the other car had been parked in previously, must mean something.

And IMO, this could be the key top the entire case.

It also brings into question whether WJ saw the other white car at 3.30pm, or whether SL's Fiesta had been dumped at this point already?

Of course, if SL's Fiesta was only parked up there AFTER WJ's 2nd sighting of a white car at 3.30pm, it could mean that SL was abducted much later than we all realise.

But WHY would the abductor drive BACK to Stevenage road to dump SL's car?

Well, to either get back into his own car parked close by, or to try and deliberately confuse the investigation by making the police think that her Fiesta had been parked there all day from 12.45pm.

In some ways, it works as the perfect distraction and slight of hand.

Lots more to consider here

Abductor most likely was the white car owner or house occupier nearby, like you stated he most likely owned the white car or noticed it there. (A very smart man) The lengths he went to to confuse people astounds me that anyone could believe jc is that clever.

 

[kes1972]

Abductor most likely was the white car owner or house occupier nearby, like you stated he most likely owned the white car or noticed it there. (A very smart man) The lengths he went to to confuse people astounds me that anyone could believe jc is that clever. Would an abductor leave there car right on his doorstep? Why not, but in that case i would assume he is a family man as he would need something to hide behind.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

@Konstantin it’s interesting AS also thought SL’s private life was pivotal. He also clearly thought JC was plausible/the perp:

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Abductor most likely was the white car owner or house occupier nearby, like you stated he most likely owned the white car or noticed it there. (A very smart man) The lengths he went to to confuse people astounds me that anyone could believe jc is that clever.

Apparently no one immediately local in road had a white fiesta type car. “Most remember the car as it was not a familiar one”.

 

[Officer Dibble]

there are more initials, names in the case. if you want more let me know.

Yes i'd like a list but you are not allowed to post them publicly. I'm not allowed to ask you to send me a list via message either.

 

[GTB72]

@Konstantin it’s interesting AS also thought SL’s private life was pivotal. He also clearly thought JC was plausible/the perp:
View attachment 653791

That's interesting. I didn't know Stephen had mentioned JC in a letter to a newspaper. What year was this?

 

[Officer Dibble]

Who was that car owner, did they put that car there with that intention of putting sl car in that position later, because that works???

I agree this is one possibility, for sure. JMO MOO

 

[Konstantin]

@Konstantin it’s interesting AS also thought SL’s private life was pivotal. He also clearly thought JC was plausible/the perp:
View attachment 653791

He's right - it does fit his narrative that JC was Kipper and that they had known each other before. It really does seem most likely that whoever kipper was, she knew him in some capacity.

The question is where and how did their paths cross then? And the answer might well still be in her diary.

 

[Officer Dibble]

There was some speculation on here after DV's book came out that "James Galway" was CV. He'd just dumped SJL's car, needed a cab to get back to the pub and planted a false trail by hailing a cab and telling the cabbie he'd just seen a violent altercation.

It's not impossible, but you'd need to know what CV looked like in 1986, and you'd also need to dismiss the BW and now the EM sighting.

I didn't know that but I watched a reconstruction recently and had the very same thought about the man who hailed the taxi. JMO MOO

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

He's right - it does fit his narrative that JC was Kipper and that they had known each other before. It really does seem most likely that whoever kipper was, she knew him in some capacity.

The question is where and how did their paths cross then? And the answer might well still be in her diary.

If JC, he was buying/looking for a house with ‘Sue’ in Fulham that’s something to ponder. Was he a ‘contact’ in same way others were that was never bottomed out (?) We do know he joined reputable dating agencies/agency a year later.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

That's interesting. I didn't know Stephen had mentioned JC in a letter to a newspaper. What year was this?

Oct 1990.

 

[RichardKimble]

@Konstantin it’s interesting AS also thought SL’s private life was pivotal. He also clearly thought JC was plausible/the perp:
View attachment 653791

But as ever the misplaced log in the a woodpile, the file presented to the CPS,which failed to find a direct direct link between JC and SL, always wrong to assume but surely that means in the run up to her disappearance and the day of.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

But as ever the misplaced log in the a woodpile, the file presented to the CPS,which failed to find a direct direct link between JC and SL, always wrong to assume but surely that means in the run up to her disappearance and the day of.

But as ever the misplaced log in the a woodpile, the file presented to the CPS,which failed to find a direct direct link between JC and SL, always wrong to assume but surely that means in the run up to her disappearance and the day of.

Yes, I think they’ve tried to force a link perhaps & failed. They needed more as we know. I find what AS says/implies here interesting.