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

[lee sumner]

i doubt it. he is not clever enough.

mr kipper had at least 2 hrs to do what he wanted to SL inside 37SR, but he did not do this for some reason. i think he wanted SL all to himself overnight. this MO points to JC. we know he took SB back to his place, foye house, so he obviously wanted her to himself all night long. so was SL held captive somewhere, or was she killed on the 28/july/1986.

 

[lee sumner]

Good point, he says he was going to abandon it or set it on fire. I think he thought painting it blue was good enough disguise and changing plate.

If completely innocent why go to elaborate lengths to say whoever killed (SB) killed SL 'and another girl', hence the '3' in made up mini numberplate some say (although I am not sure I subscribe to that theory). He certainly didn't do this to showboat or boast he was distressed and in trouble in the interview.

this is what convinced me JC abducted SL, but over the years something just does not add up when it comes to JC being the notorious mr kipper.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

mr kipper had at least 2 hrs to do what he wanted to SL inside 37SR, but he did not do this for some reason. i think he wanted SL all to himself overnight. this MO points to JC. we know he took SB back to his place, foye house, so he obviously wanted her to himself all night long. so was SL held captive somewhere, or was she killed on the 28/july/1986.

He had his father's legacy to spend and, if so, that's enough to rent somewhere decent with cash for a few days if so and buy suits and assume the persona of a 'Mr Peterson' NB: dating agency video.

 

[lee sumner]

They really didn’t want to blacken her moral character I feel. NB: ‘she was just a modern girl’ article which some were comfortable about.

It seems curiously old fashioned IMO now to worry about who she may or may not have seen on Sun night, outside of AL.

i agree. they all sound so prude.

 

[lee sumner]

He had his father's legacy to spend and, if so, that's enough to rent somewhere decent with cash for a few days if so and buy suits and assume the persona of a 'Mr Peterson' NB: dating agency video.

true. if so i would love to know where that location was.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

this is what convinced me JC abducted SL, but over the years something just does not add up when it comes to JC being the notorious mr kipper.

i agree. they all sound so prude.

Of course it depends though on what the sensitivity on Sunday night might have really been about.

 

[lee sumner]

This is my thinking regarding the keys too. These things perhaps weren’t immediately considered very important, and over time assumptions and suppositions became hardened and entrenched.

On who knew about the pub, AS says Suzy was ‘preoccupied’ with finding her belongings. But did he deduce this based on statements made by her colleagues, or simply from her behaviour, eg the calls and plans she made to retrieve said belongings across the morning? It’s not clear to me.

In the 80s would your bank also have known where you worked and how to reach you there? I didn’t get a bank account until the 90s, I don’t think any of the banks I’ve used since then have ever had my employer’s contact details as well as my own. I wonder what the exact sequence of events was that morning? Did Suzy call her bank (perhaps leaving with them her work number in case they needed to reach her?), then the pub called the bank, then the bank called Suzy back using the number given? Or would the bank have had that number anyway, a sort of ‘in case of emergencies’ type of thing?

SL arranged to pick up missing items at 6PM, so she was obviously not in a hurry to get them back.

 

[lee sumner]

Of course it depends though on what the sensitivity on Sunday night might have really been about.

true. the mystery deepens. i would love to see the original case files.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

SL arranged to pick up missing items at 6PM, so she was obviously not in a hurry to get them back.

Well truth is we don’t know. AS talks about her ‘sexual contacts’ distinct from her lovers. DV that this contact book never seen before by friends. It’s a 2026 iphone without a code - most would collect earlier rather than later!

 

[lee sumner]

Well truth is we don’t know. AS talks about her ‘sexual contacts’ distinct from her lovers. DV that this contact book never seen before by friends. It’s a 2026 iphone without a code - most would collect earlier rather than later!

then why did she agree to pick them up at 6PM.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

then why did she agree to pick them up at 6PM.

She wouldn’t have said precisely 6pm as meeting someone then - DV puts forward a theory. But fact is most are going to want & need a contact book like that back soonest.

 

[lee sumner]

She wouldn’t have said precisely 6pm as meeting someone then - DV puts forward a theory. But fact is most are going to want & need a contact book like that back soonest.

SL was more than happy leaving her lost items at the POW all day. its obvious her plan was to collect them on the way home around 630PM. she was not rushing to pick them up. early evening on the way home from work. killing 2 birds with 1 stone, as the saying goes.

 

[lee sumner]

I didn't realise JC used the phrase "another girl" in that interview. Do you think he is referring to SC here?

no. just more BS from JC.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

SL was more than happy leaving her lost items at the POW all day. its obvious her plan was to collect them on the way home around 630PM. she was not rushing to pick them up. early evening on the way home from work. killing 2 birds with 1 stone, as the saying goes.

It was a personal contact book, poss very personal, she had a busy day but it’s obvious anyone would want & even need it earlier rather than later. (Numbers). The evidence says she was preoccupied in the morning about loss of belongings KH tells us decades later she said, to paraphrase ‘my book, do you have it? Do you have it? You have got it, haven’t you?!’

Most would zip over whenever they had chance.

 

[Rookie D]

It takes only 2 and a half minutes to walk from 49 Disraeli Road to the POW.

Walking at pace. and with purpose, it could take as little as 2 minutes.

With heels on, SL could have walked it in 3 minutes.


If the personal items were so important to her, then why not go and get them before she started work?

The drive only around 1 minute, but due to parking, it would have been quicker to walk.

It's clear that she either wasn't that concerned about her personal items, she had no idea she had lost them, or she knew she had lost them, but had no idea where they were.

To say that she knew she had lost personal items, and they were important enough for her to go and get them asap, just doesn't make sense.

The walk from the flat to the pub, is just over 200 meters.


I guess the issue is that the pub wouldn't have been open at that time of the morning.


However, the apparent 6pm timing doesn't make sense either, because she had a viewing at 6pm in Waldemar Avenue.

It would be interesting to know WHEN that Waldemar Avenue meeting had been arranged?

Could that have been an appointment arranged on the morning of the 28th July when SL got into work?

Could SL have intentionally planned to go and collect her items from the pub at 6pm after she had finished work?

What was her usual finishing time at work?

If the Waldemar Avenue viewing had indeed come in at the last minute, then the woman on the phone may have requested a 6pm viewing, and SL may have then chosen to prioritize her work, instead of her need to go and get her items from the pub at 6pm.

Considering the property in Waldemar Avenue was arguably her biggest job of the day, it would have made sense for SL to have delayed her going to the pub in favour of seeing her client in Waldemar Avenue.

But if that's the case, did SL call the pub to delay her going there to pick up her items?

It seems not.

So what's going on here?

Why have a 6pm appointment, but then arrange to pick her personal items up from the pub at the exact same time of 6pm?


Couldn't SL have asked a family member/work colleague/friend/flatmate/bf/lover, to go and collect her personal items from the pub on her behalf?

And in terms of the 6pm viewing; could SL have been abducted much later than is believed?

Was SL alive and well, but was abducted just before or after 6pm?

Could the Waldemar Avenue viewing combined with the POW, be more significant in terms of her disappearance, than the meeting of Mr Kipper in Shorrolds Road?

All conjecture and supposition on my part of course.

 

[Officer Dibble]

Why was the Fiesta left outside of 123 Stevenage Road?

It sounds like a random question, but there's always a reason for everything and anything when it comes to looking at an abduction and murder case.

123 Stevenage Road was of course a Sturgis property.

But SL wasn't the estate agent dealing with that particular property.

It was Mark Gurdon.

So we have SL's car left outside the property being managed by SL's manager at Sturgis.


Is that significant?

Possibly.

Mark Gurdon on the Crimewatch reconstruction that was AIRED 81 days after the disappearance of SL, very specifically states "5.30pm" as the time that he called the police to inform them that SL was missing.

And yet, in the press, the approximate time that MG was stated as having called the police, has differed wildly.

For example, the time of 6.45pm has been attributed to the time when the call was made by MG to the police.

So we have "5.30pm" and "6.45pm", plus several other time variants.


Is this significant?

Possibly.



What I find odd is that when the office personnel looked at SL's table diary, they could clearly see a 6pm meeting at Wardemar Avenue.

And so, how can MG state on camera that he called the police at "5.30" to tell them SL was missing, when the logical thing to do, would be to attend the 6pm meeting on SL's behalf to see if she turned up, and only when he realised that SL wasn't there either, MG THEN calls the police?

I find that strange

It also doesn't help when it's clear and obvious that MG is hiding something.

I've watched his "performance" on the Crimewatch broadcast in 1986, and it's as clear as day that he's not telling us everything that he knows.

What is his angle here, and why those peculiar automated micro expressions that scream out that he's not being honest about something.


Was it definitely ascertained that 37SR was indeed empty when he went to go and look for her at the house?


Is there a chance that the house wasn't empty and that SL was being held there by someone who told MG to look the other way?

Was SL the victim of a professional hit by someone hired to silence her and make her stay gone?


Did SL bite off more than she could chew, and the men who were involved chose to make an example of her?


The world of Real Estate back in the 80's was plagued by criminality, and so is there a chance that Mr Kipper wasn't a predatory psychopath, but rather a hired contract killer?


I mean, it's pretty thin, but what if the entire case has just been one big ball of smoke and mirrors from the offset?


All supposition and conjecture on my part of course.

I've just rewatched the 1986 reconstruction, with what you said about MG and I have to say, now that you've mentioned it, and I'm concentrating on MG, that I agree with your points. BBM. JMO MOO.

Does he resemble either of the two different photo fits? JMO MOO

Or could it just be that he is nervous about being on TV and getting the information correct? There is definitely nervousness there. JMO MOO

 

[WestLondoner]

How many Fiestas are we up to now?

 

[Officer Dibble]

I distinctly remember early on in the SL case on Crimewatch mention of a couple (possibly young couple) travelling/driving in a car, behind another car, where a woman was desperately trying to get attention in the rear window of the car she was travelling in. Can anyone remember this and can anyone find me any information about this please?

 

[lee sumner]

It was a personal contact book, poss very personal, she had a busy day but it’s obvious anyone would want & even need it earlier rather than later. (Numbers). The evidence says she was preoccupied in the morning about loss of belongings KH tells us decades later she said, to paraphrase ‘my book, do you have it? Do you have it? You have got it, haven’t you?!’

Most would zip over whenever they had chance

 

[lee sumner]

KH did not speak to SL regarding her lost items, his wife did. DV just believes what KH tells him. occams principle way of thinking tells me SL was not in a hurry to get her lost items back. this is why DCI carter and his team did not search the POW, because they knew SL had never made it there. they knew she was collecting her lost items on the way home from work between 6PM and 7PM.