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

[Lady Stoddart-West]

If you're talking about the "mystery calls" to the POW, if memory serves they were made (according to AS) on the afternoon of sjl's disappearance but KH doesn't mention them until a year later, when LE returned to the original witnesses to review their statements. According to KH, he had told LE this at the time, and had handed over a piece of paper with a telephone number on it which LE claim they never had.

It seems the 'new' information [that likely wasn't so 'new'] came about in 1987 when the police "would return to all the key witnesses and suspects to see if anything fresh had come to their minds. (Source: AS). [Routine for investigations, not focussed soley on KH] In particular what interested them was the party given in Surrey, by the young estate agent friend of Susannah's on the Saturday before she went missing"

KH had been interviewed at the time - 86 - and it seems that information he gave then had been lost or not noted. There were seemingly other errors like this, the BMW witness (who saw arguing couple) had apparently spoken up in Aug 1986 but this information lost or not noted by investigating team then (source: JD).

@AfricanGrey do you know if KH accepts DV’s recount of the “keep her talking until I can get round there” conversation he had at the pub (KH with ‘Sarah’). If so, it’s vital evidence re: exactly what was unfolding on that fateful Monday. It doesn’t implicate KH & DV has unwittingly shed light on some of the real story that day.

The waters have been so muddied along the way getting to the truth very hard especially at 40 years distance. The perceived timeline IMO is incorrect beginning with WJ’s mis-spotting of SL’s fiesta almost before SL had left office.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

It seems the 'new' information [that likely wasn't so 'new'] came about in 1987 when the police "would return to all the key witnesses and suspects to see if anything fresh had come to their minds. (Source: AS). [Routine for investigations, not focussed soley on KH] In particular what interested them was the party given in Surrey, by the young estate agent friend of Susannah's on the Saturday before she went missing"

KH had been interviewed at the time - 86 - and it seems that information he gave then had been lost or not noted. There were seemingly other errors like this, the BMW witness (who saw arguing couple) had apparently spoken up in Aug 1986 but this information lost or not noted by investigating team then (source: JD).

@AfricanGrey do you know if KH accepts DV’s recount of the “keep her talking until I can get round there” conversation he had at the pub (KH with ‘Sarah’). If so, it’s vital evidence re: exactly what was unfolding on that fateful Monday. It doesn’t implicate KH & DV has unwittingly shed light on some of the real story that day.

The waters have been so muddied along the way getting to the truth very hard especially at 40 years distance. The perceived timeline IMO is incorrect beginning with WJ’s mis-spotting of SL’s fiesta almost before SL had left office.

so DV has his own case file, but he also does not really know what happened to suzy. it could have been an accident he said in a recent interview, which floored me. DV is convinced SL is buried in the POW, but he also does not know what happened to SL on the 28/7/1986. he clearly has not got a clue.

I wondered if the references he makes to the case he was involved in where the victim was found on an embankment close to her home mean that he's suggesting that Sjl was dumped on the embankment behind the POW rather than in the pub itself. The "evidence" he has for her actually being in the POW itself is almost laughable (including old Guinness cans resting in a pile of debris etc) - he's not serious, is he?

 

[lee sumner]

It seems the 'new' information [that likely wasn't so 'new'] came about in 1987 when the police "would return to all the key witnesses and suspects to see if anything fresh had come to their minds. (Source: AS). [Routine for investigations, not focussed soley on KH] In particular what interested them was the party given in Surrey, by the young estate agent friend of Susannah's on the Saturday before she went missing"

KH had been interviewed at the time - 86 - and it seems that information he gave then had been lost or not noted. There were seemingly other errors like this, the BMW witness (who saw arguing couple) had apparently spoken up in Aug 1986 but this information lost or not noted by investigating team then (source: JD).

@AfricanGrey do you know if KH accepts DV’s recount of the “keep her talking until I can get round there” conversation he had at the pub (KH with ‘Sarah’). If so, it’s vital evidence re: exactly what was unfolding on that fateful Monday. It doesn’t implicate KH & DV has unwittingly shed light on some of the real story that day.

The waters have been so muddied along the way getting to the truth very hard especially at 40 years distance. The perceived timeline IMO is incorrect beginning with WJ’s mis-spotting of SL’s fiesta almost before SL had left office.

i dont believe KH gave any number to the detectives. there is no way DCS carter would make a mistake like this. i think KH was just making this up which does seem strange. KH was probably just seeking attention which is weird.

 

[lee sumner]

You cannot say sl never got there! Do you have some kind of proof?

6PM was pick up time. there is the proof. common sense. logic. do you have proof SL changed her mind about collecting her lost items from the POW.

 

[lee sumner]

I think it’s helpful to see AL in context of the very good family friend he was. He stepped up when it mattered & poss understood their relationship didn’t have romantic longevity. (He knew she’d been away for weekend with JH a few weeks before). They were friends before they were lovers & likely things would have swung back that way.

good point. they were friends before they became lovers. leegood comes across as a good man. his theory is the same as mine.

 

[kes1972]

6PM was pick up time. there is the proof. common sense. logic. do you have proof SL changed her mind about collecting her lost items from the POW.

Wrong, she had a viewing booked for 6pm and never got timings wrong

 

[kes1972]

If you're talking about the "mystery calls" to the POW, if memory serves they were made (according to AS) on the afternoon of sjl's disappearance but KH doesn't mention them until a year later, when LE returned to the original witnesses to review their statements. According to KH, he had told LE this at the time, and had handed over a piece of paper with a telephone number on it which LE claim they never had.

How convenient

 

[kes1972]

If you're talking about the "mystery calls" to the POW, if memory serves they were made (according to AS) on the afternoon of sjl's disappearance but KH doesn't mention them until a year later, when LE returned to the original witnesses to review their statements. According to KH, he had told LE this at the time, and had handed over a piece of paper with a telephone number on it which LE claim they never had.

That makes no sense, so le completely forgot he was handed a detail of importance and returns a year later and cannot recall that event?

 

[lee sumner]

I think it’s helpful to see AL in context of the very good family friend he was. He stepped up when it mattered & poss understood their relationship didn’t have romantic longevity. (He knew she’d been away for weekend with JH a few weeks before). They were friends before they were lovers & likely things would have swung back that way.

Wrong, she had a viewing booked for 6pm and never got timings wrong

i have said this many times SL was not in a hurry to pick up her lost items. after meeting joanna to view 43 waldermar rd which was at 6PM. after this viewing on the way home is when she would pick up her lost items. between 6/7PM.

 

[lee sumner]

They were reported at time & a solid lead.

AFAIK the ‘lost’ piece of paper with phone number on it was the earlier missed detail.

never was a phone number lost. its a BS story.

 

[lee sumner]

If you're talking about the "mystery calls" to the POW, if memory serves they were made (according to AS) on the afternoon of sjl's disappearance but KH doesn't mention them until a year later, when LE returned to the original witnesses to review their statements. According to KH, he had told LE this at the time, and had handed over a piece of paper with a telephone number on it which LE claim they never had.

more BS.

 

[lee sumner]

There is no evidence (beyond this entirely hearsay nonsense of DV's, written in a different century) that police got inside with a key. In fact, quite the opposite. Officers were instructed to "enter and search". That implies a forced or different method of entry. You don't necessarily have to break a front door down either.

There is also no evidence whatsoever that the house was immediately made the subject of forensic examination. This was a missing person inquiry.

 

[lee sumner]

Not only that, the production of the re-enactment involved Sturgis staff involved in the actual events. They would have participated in pre-production as a matter of course. It is reasonable to conclude that discussion about the key fob occurred, along with the house particulars, as this was one of the central features of the re-enactment.

As a corollary, had the Shorrolds Rd appointment been a ruse, as DV postulates, SL would have needed to take the keys anyway. You can hardly claim to have gone there if you didn't take the key!

DV can only get round this with his fanciful, unevidenced theory by effectively positioning key witnesses as complete nincompoops rather than responsible, rational estate agents..

well said.

 

[lee sumner]

No. There certainly was a back door. All these terraced houses had back doors. The one at No 37 led into a small rear garden which in turn was walled off from the public baths which once stood behind. I've been there. I think the covered building had been demolished at the time of these events. It certainly presented no barrier to anyone climbing over to get in.

no back door on a terraced house. you dont need to be an estate agent to know there is one. let me guess DV says there is no back door at 37SR. only a moron would believe this info.

 

[kes1972]

never was a phone number lost. its a BS story.

Totally agree with you on this, a policeman gets given evidence and loses it?? So either check out the pc or the barman

 

[kes1972]

Totally agree with you on this, a policeman gets given evidence and loses it?? So either check out the pc or the barman

So kh bs twice with written down tel number and mystery calls, how come this line of enquiry has not been exhausted, it is like the powers that be either have some overwhelming evidence not released to thr general public or they want this case swept under the carpet

 

[Officer Dibble]

good point. they were friends before they became lovers. leegood comes across as a good man. his theory is the same as mine.

Please remind me of your theory?

 

[WestLondoner]

He has nothing further to add to that which is in his book.

How do you know this?

Kh is such an honest chap he is arranging a 3 month job for cv to learn how to run the pub for a few days while he goes to a christening and shortly after the event the pub shuts down, do me a favour i would claim that is a red flag personally, even if others do not. Also read upthread it was not cv first time at runner g this pub so why the need to be trained up again for the same role. Another red flag

KH is CV. CV + KF had been previously trained by MH at the PoW and returned to cover for him while he was on holiday. KH claims to be the person who found the lost items and said this was on Sunday. AFAIK the only source for this being on Friday is AL, who also however says he and SJL never went there. Sunday makes more sense if CV and KF were covering from the Monday.

I wondered if the references he makes to the case he was involved in where the victim was found on an embankment close to her home mean that he's suggesting that Sjl was dumped on the embankment behind the POW rather than in the pub itself.

That was how I read it too. Under a pub is a terrible hiding place; only the manager at the time she disappeared could have done that (or connived at letting someone else do it).

The "evidence" he has for her actually being in the POW itself is almost laughable (including old Guinness cans resting in a pile of debris etc) - he's not serious, is he?

That's actually quite a good shout in that it shows nobody has disturbed that space since then. However, he rather undermines this by later mentioning that somebody had in fact disturbed that space. About 8 years later, the floor was lowered. I can't imagine how you take up floorboards, put in supporting joists or whatever lower down, then put the floorboards back without noticing a dead body where the floor had been.

That makes no sense, so le completely forgot he was handed a detail of importance and returns a year later and cannot recall that event?

The claim that KH handed the plod a phone number when they arrived in 1986 arose in 1987, when he was re-interviewed. The plods concerned claimed they had no recollection of his doing so. Either they were incompetent, or he misremembered. Either seems equally plausible.

The anomalies in KH's words and actions do a lot of heavy lifting in DV's account. KH may have been alone in the pub at lunchtime, if the handover stocktake prevented normal opening, but this doesn't get bottomed out. The pub could have been open and with the usual punters and staff about. If he actually was alone there, then the only source that SJL never turned up there was him. The decision not to search based on that looks negligent. It was one of five places she was known - or plausibly likely - to have headed, the others being home, her parents' house, 123SR and 37SR, all of which were searched. If she'd come to harm there obviously he'd say she never showed. It's potty to search 123SR but not the pub.

Either KH mentioned these phone calls in 1986 or he didn't. If he did, one wonders where the followup went - I'm not aware of any having been done (Barley and Dickie are both very confused on this, thinking the calls were made to the office). If he did not, then one wonders why he mentioned them first only a year later.

The only reason I can think of is that if he had something to hide - a huge 'if', on what we know - then in 1986, it made sense to say she was due at 6pm and never showed. A year later, he's seen the photos of the diary page with a 6pm appointment proving she cannot ever have intended to go to the PoW at 6. So the story changes to suggest she was expected - and was inquired after - sooner, or at no special time.

The other oddity about KH is that according to MH, it was only a year later that he found out the missing items that turned up belonged to Britain's most famous missing person. The police turned up at the PoW in 1987 to reinterview the landlord and that's when he discovered they previously interviewed the relief landlord. So in 1986 MH gets back from holiday, asks KH if anything happened and KH evidently said Nah, quiet mostly. Eh?!