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

[lee sumner]

Yeah there's likely more than one key - with a neighbour, a cleaner, or a relative. Only one at the office, which JMP Sjl has. MG assumes same, and shouts through letterbox and windows, possibly checking round the back too. AS accepts this as sufficient to mean "inside and out". Carter in the Crimewatch programme in (I think?) October brandishes a key on its yellow Sturgis telling us that a key just like it has gone missing along with Sjl. JMO obviously, but had that key remained at Sturgis someone would have mentioned it before Crimewatch aired. And JMO again but the door to 37 SR was kicked in or shoved in by LE, just like the door to Sjl's flat was. DV suggests that 37SR can't have been accessed without a key, supporting his own narrative of what may have happened that day. So there's some doubt.

why would MG assume anything about the keys. he is the manager and knows full well there are only 1 set of keys. period.

 

[lee sumner]

So we know they had the keys to 37, why then did mg not take them with him to check 37

because they were gone. SL took them. there was only ever 1 set of keys.

 

[lee sumner]

Martin Sturgis hired her and thought she'd be good in sales, so assigned her to a branch near where she lived. The story that she walked in and was hired on the spot, like the story that she was given a window desk because she was the most attractive female, originated in her diary.

Almost all the desks were in the window and to judge by the reconstructions, all the women were young, presentable and smart.

the story about MG giving SL the job at sturgis is probably true. martin sturgis was the top dog. he would not be the one doing the hiring and firing. that is MG job as manager of the fulham rd branch of sturgis, and i believe they did put SL upfront near the entrance to the office because she was a good looking woman. this was sturgis way of marketing. nothing wrong with that.

 

[kes1972]

Absolutely.

The photo taken of SL just 2 days before her death, clearly shows her with brunette hair and blonde highlights/lowlights.

And so when the police try and give a reason for why they didn't receive as much initial help from the public as they thought they would, they use SL's hair colour to try and explain this away.

But I would wager that there's a chance that the "blonde" woman who was seen arguing with the man in the LHD BMW, wasn't necessarily SL, but instead a female accomplice.

Could the couple in the BMW have been arguing about the fact they had just killed SL?

And again, for any other sightings where a "blonde" female was supposedly identified as SL, the same may apply there to.

When we look at the so called "witnesses" that came forward, not one of them IMO gives us any definitive identification of SL; aside from BW perhaps, who was the only witness who knew SL in any capacity.

Could the abduction of SL have involved 2 people?

One being a blonde female?

I mean, it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

2 days before her death?

 

[kes1972]

if DCS carter says SL took the keys to 37SR then she took the keys. its only DV who says she did not take them. carter was the SIO, in charge, so i believe carter.

Did he see her take them then, anyone in the office could have removed the keys if involved

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

AS is a excellent journalist, then you have DV who is not even a journalist, yet people are buying into his theory which makes no sense.

The police are apparently taking/have taken some of his evidenced discoveries etc very seriously (not theory re: KH).

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

2 days before her death?

Meaning, the last photo ever taken of her, at 21st party (Sat).

 

[WestLondoner]

AS is a excellent journalist, then you have DV who is not even a journalist, yet people are buying into his theory which makes no sense.

I'm not sure the plod would agree that a journalist is more credible than an ex-plod!

 

[rvlvr]

Also not easy to see in re: all house advertising etc.

Indeed. You can see that from this photo. It’s another good yarn but like so many involving Suzy it’s not particularly true.

 

[Rookie D]

MG reported SL missing at 6.45PM. there is nothing suspicious about gurdon. he was caught up in the mystery of the lamplugh disappearance, so he would have been in shock by the events of that day. he was SL boss at sturgis, and was the one who gave her the job in early 1985.

That's not what MG said...


(6:32 - 6:39)

 

[rvlvr]

yes, martin sturgis was the guvnor/boss at sturgis, and gurdon was the manager. sturgis met suzy twice at a company event and christmas party, but it was gurdon that interviewed suzy then gave her the job.

In DV’s book (chapter 57), Keith Perry reveals he did the hiring and firing.

‘I was a partner!’ Keith rebuked me sternly, after I’d mistakenly suggested he’d been just a manager. ‘I was in charge of all the Sturgis offices. I was the residential sales partner – I basically employed everyone that worked there! Hire and fire, as they say,’ he barked back, sounding a little as if he were shouting at me on a military parade ground.

I apologised for my mistake, and he wasted no time in telling me all about Sturgis and that he’d been the person responsible for giving Suzy a job with the company.

‘We did lots of things to do with property. We had different elements – chartered surveyors, commercial, overseas – but essentially the largest element of the business was the residential side. I had my private offices in Barnes. That’s where I was based, which actually wasn’t attached to a sales office. It was basically executive offices. My immediate thought, when Suzy came for the interview, was that she would probably do well in sales. And I think she did. But as soon as I’d employed her, and once she had an agreed date to start working, she was despatched to Fulham, where she worked. And she was under Mark Gurdon’s command on a day-to-day basis there.’

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

the story about MG giving SL the job at sturgis is probably true. martin sturgis was the top dog. he would not be the one doing the hiring and firing. that is MG job as manager of the fulham rd branch of sturgis, and i believe they did put SL upfront near the entrance to the office because she was a good looking woman. this was sturgis way of marketing. nothing wrong with that.

In DV’s book (chapter 57), Keith Perry reveals he did the hiring and firing.

In DV’s book (chapter 57), Keith Perry reveals he did the hiring and firing.

Sounds very plausible. I believe SL’s account (& therefore AS’s) came from her diary as per the ‘most attractive’ etc comments.

AS is as good as his sources/source material & he had access to SL’s diaries, letters, police notes etc & he interviewed some people directly. Which is interesting when you consider some of the other specifics/details in book re: other ‘friends’ etc.

 

[lee sumner]

In DV’s book (chapter 57), Keith Perry reveals he did the hiring and firing.

AS book is the holy bible on the lamplugh case as far as iam concerned.

 

[lee sumner]

In DV’s book (chapter 57), Keith Perry reveals he did the hiring and firing.

put someone in a position of power, then you found out who they really are.

 

[lee sumner]

In DV’s book (chapter 57), Keith Perry reveals he did the hiring and firing.eve

Meaning, the last photo ever taken of her, at 21st party (Sat).

yes, siobhan grinling 21st party in capol dorkimg.

 

[rvlvr]

AS is as good as his sources/source material & he had access to SL’s diaries, letters, police notes etc & he interviewed some people directly.

Exactly. AS could’ve had access to every single police note and every diary entry and letter pertaining to this case (he almost certainly didn’t, obviously!) but if the information contained within them was unreliable or not credible then the story is compromised.

DV’s book is full of stuff that’s straight from the horse’s mouth. Sure, we can talk of the passing of time, memories being fallible, and so on - but the people he spoke to were, on the whole, very intelligent, capable folk, not a bunch of fools. If Keith Perry said he hired Suzy, then he hired her.

 

[lee sumner]

I'm not sure the plod would agree that a journalist is more credible than an ex-plod!

i disagree. there are many investigative jornalists who do a excellent job on certain cases. they are just as smart as detectives. DV was a cop for around 3 yrs, which is not very long. he obviously was not built to be a street smart investigator/detective. DV saying SL never took the keys to 37SR is an insult to the original detective DCS carter. carter would not miss such a key detail in the case.

 

[lee sumner]

Sounds very plausible. I believe SL’s account (& therefore AS’s) came from her diary as per the ‘most attractive’ etc comments.

AS is as good as his sources/source material & he had access to SL’s diaries, letters, police notes etc & he interviewed some people directly. Which is interesting when you consider some of the other specifics/details in book re: other ‘friends’ etc.

The police are apparently taking/have taken some of his evidenced discoveries etc very seriously (not theory re: KH).

no way. i bet the police all had a great laugh when DV put his theory forward. they must have thought he was a loony tunes, ha, ha.

 

[lee sumner]

Exactly. AS could’ve had access to every single police note and every diary entry and letter pertaining to this case (he almost certainly didn’t, obviously!) but if the information contained within them was unreliable or not credible then the story is compromised.

DV’s book is full of stuff that’s straight from the horse’s mouth. Sure, we can talk of the passing of time, memories being fallible, and so on - but the people he spoke to were, on the whole, very intelligent, capable folk, not a bunch of fools. If Keith Perry said he hired Suzy, then he hired her.

straight from the horses mouth 30 yrs later. AS had the case file. statements letters, etc.

 

[lee sumner]

Exactly. AS could’ve had access to every single police note and every diary entry and letter pertaining to this case (he almost certainly didn’t, obviously!) but if the information contained within them was unreliable or not credible then the story is compromised.

DV’s book is full of stuff that’s straight from the horse’s mouth. Sure, we can talk of the passing of time, memories being fallible, and so on - but the people he spoke to were, on the whole, very intelligent, capable folk, not a bunch of fools. If Keith Perry said he hired Suzy, then he hired her.

you never are going to get a straight answer from anyone 30 YRS later.