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

[Konstantin]

What doesn't make sense is that if MG found the set of keys in the office, he would have known that Suzy couldn't have possibly visited the property that afternoon. Also the other staff in the office would have known as well, so why did no-one from the office relay this information to the police?

The only thing that would make sense is that there were a spare set of keys to the property, and maybe over time MG and the other staff have forgotten about this? I know it has been said that Sturgis only had one set of keys to their properties but perhaps occasionally one or two properties on their books did have a spare key and Shorrolds Road was one of these?

It would explain how MG got into the property that afternoon and also how the police were able to access the property on the Tuesday morning.

It would also explain the set of keys in the blonde policewoman's hand in the photograph DV saw.

Exactly, I think that DV is most likely wrong. His argument relies on everyone missing a really important and actually rather obvious point, and nothing suggests that the police were negligent in this case, in fact the opposite, the problem was there was and is just no evidence about what happened to SJL when she left Sturgis. So no leads to follow.

 

[Terryb808]

There must have been a lot of emotion at the time, much concern for SJL’s safety when she didn’t return.
Not all people are analytical enough to stop and think things through, it could just be that MG didn’t know 37 Shorrolds had just one set of keys, or just didn’t think.
When it comes to the other Sturgis staff recalling what SJL did before she left the office you need to take into account that at that moment it was a routine event.
As such they may not have actually paid much attention to what she really did, then subconsciously added the “taking the keys & paperwork’” because that’s what normally happens. Sadly we can’t take it as factually correct.
DV must have looked at this in detail as it’s key (pardon the pun) to his case, I feel he must know the whole taking the keys & paperwork was a crucial error and also who made that error. For whatever reason he’s not revealed who that person is.

 

[WestLondoner]

The digest of what was in the AS book is really informative so thanks to Konstantin for doing that.

a photograph taken outside the property 5 days after Suzy's disappearance of a blonde policewoman holding a set of Sturgis keys, complete with tag, in her hand. So if this is true then where did these keys come from?

Well, we don't know if they fitted. They could have been for a different property. Between the lines, I think DV has concluded that MG inadvertently misled the plod in 1986 over the keys question. MG wasn’t in when SJL left the office, so when she failed to return, he checked her diary and went round to the apparent viewing site, using the keys that were still in the office. That they should not have been there at all if she had really gone to a viewing simply didn’t occur to him at the time, nor until it was embarrassingly late. Meanwhile, rabbits were set running on the assumption that she had taken a set of keys and really had gone there.

the investigation got clogged up with sightings that were most likely a result of people overthinking the case and coming up with things that were well meaning but not right.

it is most likely MG led HR by asking him did he see a male and a female attend the address earlier that day. However we don't know this for sure. If HR was suggestible then him being told by MG that he was looking for a missing estate agent colleague who had been there to attend a house viewing with a client, this might have put in his head
the "couple buying a house" thing.

Yes, this.

HR also starts to look like a very unreliable witness. If he could fabricate a whole bundled-into-a-car abduction, an embellishment he appears to come up with only once he found out what the police suspected, couldn’t he have made up the entire account? Somebody came forward 14 years later claiming to have seen a couple having an altercation in a BMW. This was obviously, obviously prompted by later police and press assertions that JC did it. This supposed witness didn’t think to mention this until 14 years later, but as soon as JC and his (1987-acquired) BMW are mentioned, suddenly they can remember the very date it happened. So completely unreliable witnesses trying to be helpful are definitely a thing.

Although HR might be a bit of a flake, the cellarman sort of restores credibility to the idea of SJL actually going to Shorrolds. He would indeed have had a signing-on time for his dole, so that would indeed time his sighting. The circumstantial detail that she had blondish hair suggests he wasn’t concocting his sighting from the media coverage.

In that reconstruction, MG is shown visiting Shorrolds Road with a male colleague and not actually going into the property, but we know that he also talked to the neighbour, who is not shown talking to him in the reconstruction, so how accurate was it?

Another observation that I think is unavoidable, based on what’s in this book, is that the Crimewatch reconstruction at least appears to have been grossly inaccurate. SJL is shown reaching past MG to get the keys, but as others have pointed out, he wasn’t even there. So he didn’t see this - so who did? Did anyone? Why would anyone have noticed it? Did everyone just assume she must have done this, because it fitted with the other assumption - that she had really gone to 37SR?

Later MG is shown turning up at 37SR with a male colleague, but it was known at the time that he went with a female colleague. HR apparently had a conversation with MG, but this is not shown at all. If it happened, it blows away the idea that HR actually saw MG and SF, mistaking them for SJL and A N Other.

my first action would probably be to get inside by calling out a locksmith

Easier said than done. Locksmiths then or now won't normally let you into a random property; you'd have to prove you had a right to get in. If you said you were an estate agent and you thought your colleague was inside a locksmith would probably say call the police. If a locksmith had been involved, someone would remember.

The other really interesting point is this whole pub thing. At the time and since, AL has given conflicting accounts of when and where he saw SJL that weekend. This is inevitable given the passage of time, but it’s then very hard to reconcile the CV account of finding the diary with what AS has said. CV reckons he found the lost items on the Sunday night but AS apparently says they were lost two nights previously at the adjoining restaurant.

The frustrating thing about DV’s book is that he can’t have failed to be aware of all the stuff in AS’s work, yet addresses none of it properly in his own. BW’s sighting is not discussed, the cellarman’s sighting is discarded because he is today unreachable, the £3000 commission and the relation with TS and PS is not mentioned, CV has neither motive nor opportunity, and so on. The only interpretation one can really put on DV’s book when placed alongside AS’ is that he has found reason to dispense with all the stuff he doesn’t consider, but he is not at liberty to set out why.

 

[Terryb808]

The digest of what was in the AS book is really informative so thanks to Konstantin for doing that.



Well, we don't know if they fitted. They could have been for a different property. Between the lines, I think DV has concluded that MG inadvertently misled the plod in 1986 over the keys question. MG wasn’t in when SJL left the office, so when she failed to return, he checked her diary and went round to the apparent viewing site, using the keys that were still in the office. That they should not have been there at all if she had really gone to a viewing simply didn’t occur to him at the time, nor until it was embarrassingly late. Meanwhile, rabbits were set running on the assumption that she had taken a set of keys and really had gone there.





Yes, this.

HR also starts to look like a very unreliable witness. If he could fabricate a whole bundled-into-a-car abduction, an embellishment he appears to come up with only once he found out what the police suspected, couldn’t he have made up the entire account? Somebody came forward 14 years later claiming to have seen a couple having an altercation in a BMW. This was obviously, obviously prompted by later police and press assertions that JC did it. This supposed witness didn’t think to mention this until 14 years later, but as soon as JC and his (1987-acquired) BMW are mentioned, suddenly they can remember the very date it happened. So completely unreliable witnesses trying to be helpful are definitely a thing.

Although HR might be a bit of a flake, the cellarman sort of restores credibility to the idea of SJL actually going to Shorrolds. He would indeed have had a signing-on time for his dole, so that would indeed time his sighting. The circumstantial detail that she had blondish hair suggests he wasn’t concocting his sighting from the media coverage.



Another observation that I think is unavoidable, based on what’s in this book, is that the Crimewatch reconstruction at least appears to have been grossly inaccurate. SJL is shown reaching past MG to get the keys, but as others have pointed out, he wasn’t even there. So he didn’t see this - so who did? Did anyone? Why would anyone have noticed it? Did everyone just assume she must have done this, because it fitted with the other assumption - that she had really gone to 37SR?

Later MG is shown turning up at 37SR with a male colleague, but it was known at the time that he went with a female colleague. HR apparently had a conversation with MG, but this is not shown at all. If it happened, it blows away the idea that HR actually saw MG and SF, mistaking them for SJL and A N Other.



Easier said than done. Locksmiths then or now won't normally let you into a random property; you'd have to prove you had a right to get in. If you said you were an estate agent and you thought your colleague was inside a locksmith would probably say call the police. If a locksmith had been involved, someone would remember.

The other really interesting point is this whole pub thing. At the time and since, AL has given conflicting accounts of when and where he saw SJL that weekend. This is inevitable given the passage of time, but it’s then very hard to reconcile the CV account of finding the diary with what AS has said. CV reckons he found the lost items on the Sunday night but AS apparently says they were lost two nights previously at the adjoining restaurant.

The frustrating thing about DV’s book is that he can’t have failed to be aware of all the stuff in AS’s work, yet addresses none of it properly in his own. BW’s sighting is not discussed, the cellarman’s sighting is discarded because he is today unreachable, the £3000 commission and the relation with TS and PS is not mentioned, CV has neither motive nor opportunity, and so on. The only interpretation one can really put on DV’s book when placed alongside AS’ is that he has found reason to dispense with all the stuff he doesn’t consider, but he is not at liberty to set out why.

DV is I feel forced to leave out some people (such as PS & TS), I’m sure he’s tried to interview them, but received the cold shoulder.
They have remained low profile fro 35 years, it’s also been pointed out that AS got the lost items wrong, a close friend who worked with him confirmed that SJL lost her items on Sunday not Friday. This is where DV is coming from, it’s also been said if he got one thing write it was this.

 

[WestLondoner]

I'd have thought if PS and TS wanted to be left out, it would have made them of huge interest to DV....! That would surely have made it into the book, in the same way that the fruitless contacts with Noel the barman, CV's ex, etc all made it into the book.

The interesting thing here is how unreliable the witnesses are. We don't know if AL and SJL went to Mossop's or the PoW, and we don't know whether it was Friday or Sunday. We don't know who, of at least three people, found her stuff, or how it got to the PoW on Sunday if she was at Mossop's on Friday. We don't know where she went on Saturday night after the party or where she was on Sunday evening or with whom. We don't know who spoke to her on Monday morning. We don't know if she took keys to 37SR or if she went there at all. We don't know when she intended to go to the pub to retrieve her stuff. We don't know how the police got in. We don't know when or why her car ended up in Stevenage Road.

We don't know any of this for sure not because there aren't any witnesses, but because there are. We have patently conflicting accounts of what went on that were irreconcilable at the time, and 35 years on, the picture's no clearer, inevitably.

 

[Terryb808]

I'd have thought if PS and TS wanted to be left out, it would have made them of huge interest to DV....! That would surely have made it into the book, in the same way that the fruitless contacts with Noel the barman, CV's ex, etc all made it into the book.

The interesting thing here is how unreliable the witnesses are. We don't know if AL and SJL went to Mossop's or the PoW, and we don't know whether it was Friday or Sunday. We don't know who, of at least three people, found her stuff, or how it got to the PoW on Sunday if she was at Mossop's on Friday. We don't know where she went on Saturday night after the party or where she was on Sunday evening or with whom. We don't know who spoke to her on Monday morning. We don't know if she took keys to 37SR or if she went there at all. We don't know when she intended to go to the pub to retrieve her stuff. We don't know how the police got in. We don't know when or why her car ended up in Stevenage Road.

We don't know any of this for sure not because there aren't any witnesses, but because there are. We have patently conflicting accounts of what went on that were irreconcilable at the time, and 35 years on, the picture's no clearer, inevitably.

All I can say is take a look at PSS & TS, this might help understand why DV doesn’t include them in his book. If I recall correctly PSS briefly makes it into AS’s book, TS doesn’t, this has been the case in all media that had surrounded the case.

 

[Pinkizzy]

All I can say is take a look at PSS & TS, this might help understand why DV doesn’t include them in his book. If I recall correctly PSS briefly makes it into AS’s book, TS doesn’t, this has been the case in all media that had surrounded the case.

Are you suggesting they are dodgy in some way?

 

[Konstantin]

HR also starts to look like a very unreliable witness. If he could fabricate a whole bundled-into-a-car abduction, an embellishment he appears to come up with only once he found out what the police suspected, couldn’t he have made up the entire account?

Well here's something interesting to note on this point.

According to the AS book, it seems that HR first told MG that he had seen the smartly dressed young man with a woman he didn't remember too well at all, and that seems to have happened when MG and a female colleague (SF I would think?) went to 37SR to see if they could find SJL there.

The AS book goes on to say that by the time MG rang the police that early evening, HR was saying that he had seen the woman being bundled into a car. So it seems as if HR's story evolved in his talks with MG over the course of that afternoon, but the book does not give any detail about how this happened, only that HR seems to have told this evolving account to MG who then related this to the police, who became alarmed.

This actually might help us clear up another point, which is something that CV raises actually in DV's book -- why were the police so fast to become alarmed and declare SJL a misper and get on the case to look for her when she was after all an adult. It seems that a likely answer is that they got an alarming story from the (as he claimed) eye witness HR.

HR apparently had a conversation with MG, but this is not shown at all. If it happened, it blows away the idea that HR actually saw MG and SF, mistaking them for SJL and A N Other.

Yup, it seems that this is what happened. HR had a conversation with MG when MG and AN Other went to the house to look for SJL and then his story evolved from seeing a male and a female at the address to the more alarming kidnap sighting. We have no clue how HR was asked by MG about what happened, and why his story evolved. I noted this down when I read the book as its so glaring. MG called the police at 18:45 and they called him back at 18:55. This detail must be from the police investigation because AS notes that the "calls were logged" at those times.

"He gave police an outline of what had happened, adding that HR now thought that the young couple had been arguing and was saying that the woman had been bundled into a car by the man. This turned out to be an exaggeration but it was enough to make the police act immediately".

So two things implied here, 1. that by the time the police called MG back at 18:55 he "added" that HR had had new thoughts about what he saw and was saying something more alarming (did this mean that HR and MG spoke in the 10 minutes between MG calling the police initially and them calling him back?); 2 that this account by HR, as related by MG so not directly to the police by HR, was the trigger that caused the police to treat the case as a kidnap case and not that an adult woman had just gone off for a few hours.

AS later notes that the DI on call that evening, Johnstone "had been told about the apparent sighting by HR too and the struggle HR was supposed to have witnessed".

So Johnstone at this stage also gets this account second hand, it seems via whoever got it from MG.

Very soon after this an artist is sent to meet HR and got the artists impression of the male he claims to have seen with the woman at 13:00 on the day SJL went missing.

However doubt started to set in after WJ claimed she had seen SJL's car parked in Stevenage Road from 12:45 pm on the day SJL went missing. Since this contradicted HR's account of his sighting of the man and woman outside 37SR, the police went back to HR and this time he "seemed less sure of his story. A door banging that he said was 37's could have been at another neighbouring house he conceded when police checked with him".

 

[Pinkizzy]

MG and DL spoke to witnesses before they gave their statements to the police. MG may have prompted HR to say the wrong thing to the police like DL managed with WJ.

 

[WiseOwl]

Well here's something interesting to note on this point.

According to the AS book, it seems that HR first told MG that he had seen the smartly dressed young man with a woman he didn't remember too well at all, and that seems to have happened when MG and a female colleague (SF I would think?) went to 37SR to see if they could find SJL there.

The AS book goes on to say that by the time MG rang the police that early evening, HR was saying that he had seen the woman being bundled into a car. So it seems as if HR's story evolved in his talks with MG over the course of that afternoon, but the book does not give any detail about how this happened, only that HR seems to have told this evolving account to MG who then related this to the police, who became alarmed.

This actually might help us clear up another point, which is something that CV raises actually in DV's book -- why were the police so fast to become alarmed and declare SJL a misper and get on the case to look for her when she was after all an adult. It seems that a likely answer is that they got an alarming story from the (as he claimed) eye witness HR.



Yup, it seems that this is what happened. HR had a conversation with MG when MG and AN Other went to the house to look for SJL and then his story evolved from seeing a male and a female at the address to the more alarming kidnap sighting. We have no clue how HR was asked by MG about what happened, and why his story evolved. I noted this down when I read the book as its so glaring. MG called the police at 18:45 and they called him back at 18:55. This detail must be from the police investigation because AS notes that the "calls were logged" at those times.

"He gave police an outline of what had happened, adding that HR now thought that the young couple had been arguing and was saying that the woman had been bundled into a car by the man. This turned out to be an exaggeration but it was enough to make the police act immediately".

So two things implied here, 1. that by the time the police called MG back at 18:55 he "added" that HR had had new thoughts about what he saw and was saying something more alarming (did this mean that HR and MG spoke in the 10 minutes between MG calling the police initially and them calling him back?); 2 that this account by HR, as related by MG so not directly to the police by HR, was the trigger that caused the police to treat the case as a kidnap case and not that an adult woman had just gone off for a few hours.

AS later notes that the DI on call that evening, Johnstone "had been told about the apparent sighting by HR too and the struggle HR was supposed to have witnessed".

So Johnstone at this stage also gets this account second hand, it seems via whoever got it from MG.

Very soon after this an artist is sent to meet HR and got the artists impression of the male he claims to have seen with the woman at 13:00 on the day SJL went missing.

However doubt started to set in after WJ claimed she had seen SJL's car parked in Stevenage Road from 12:45 pm on the day SJL went missing. Since this contradicted HR's account of his sighting of the man and woman outside 37SR, the police went back to HR and this time he "seemed less sure of his story. A door banging that he said was 37's could have been at another neighbouring house he conceded when police checked with him".

So if MG related to the police what HR told him and it triggered them to believe it was a kidnap case, why on earth did they not check or break-in to the Shorrolds Road property that evening? After all it was potentially a crime scene, especially if they did believe HR's story.

In his book DV speaks to one of the policemen who broke into Suzy's flat that evening, but there is no explanation for why they didn't try and gain entry to the Shorrolds Road property.

Of course, if MG did go inside the property that afternoon and found no sign of Suzy then he must of told the police this, but even if he had gone inside it still doesn't make sense why the police would not investigate as well.

 

[Pinkizzy]

MG and DL spoke to witnesses before they gave their statements to the police. MG may have prompted HR to say the wrong thing to the police like DL managed with WJ.

Didn't DL visit WJ and HR before they spoke to the police?

 

[Terryb808]

Are you suggesting they are dodgy in some way?

If you look at PSS now and what she does, then take into account the fact that she appears to avoid involvement in the disappearance of SJL, it just seems strange that no one gets anything from her.
After all they both knew SJL for a long time before she disappeared, so you’d think that the media and writers of the various books would talk to them.

 

[Terryb808]

Some very good observations above regarding HR’s statements to the police. Seems that MG & DL talked to HR and got him to embellish his account.
What fits with this is CV’s comment about why the the police reacted so quickly to the absence of an adult. This is also odd, I personally wouldn’t have know what the police protocol’s were regarding this, so why did CV appear to know this.
It goes to show how the investigation was derailed right away.

 

[WestLondoner]

So if MG related to the police what HR told him and it triggered them to believe it was a kidnap case, why on earth did they not check or break-in to the Shorrolds Road property that evening?

Yes, it's odd. I can only think the police were focused at that point on trying to find her alive, in the obvious places. MG said he'd already searched obvious place #1, inside 37SR. Knowing that, the police went to obvious place #2, which was her flat. Once her car's found abandoned at 10pm, their emphasis and concern level abruptly change.

HR's story placing SJL at 37SR has always seemed to me to have several yawning holes in it. One is that he supposedly noticed SJL and A N Other leaving the house, but not the much noisier later visit of MG and SF. It now rather appears that the latter was the only visit he noticed - but how did MG ever get talking to him in the first place? Did he come outside, wanting to get involved?

Another oddity is that if this was an intended assault, and SJL and someone else really were seen there, why is there no evidence anyone ever went inside 37SR and carried out such an assault? Why would you lure an attractive victim to a suitably hidden scene and then do something else? It was duly forensicated and no sign of entry by SJL or anyone unknown was found. If JC's fingerprints had been there, as a convicted criminal they would have identified him - unless he found a way to go inside and not touch anything, or wore gloves on a July day.

If she went there and didn't go inside then perhaps it was an intended abduction all along. So why didn't anyone notice it going on? HR claims he did, but this detail was added later after he knew an abduction was suspected. At each stage, HR describes what those questioning wanted him to have seen. In any case, how did any supposed Mr Kipper get to 37SR, how did they leave, and why did her car turn up a mile away having been driven there by someone else?

In respect of these points, DV's take makes more sense to me than the traditional account, although we still don't have in his book a plausible suspect or alternative course.

 

[WestLondoner]

Didn't DL visit WJ and HR before they spoke to the police?

WJ certainly. Not sure about HR, but DL definitely planted into WJ's consciousness what she was supposed to have seen. WJ's account is for me completely undermined by the two BT workers, who were there all day till 4pm and never saw the car. A taxi driver claimed to have seen it too, but was vague about the time. If it was after 4pm, his sighting can be accepted because it's not contradicted by the BT workers' account.

The car seems likely to have been dumped by the killer as far away from the actual scene as he could manage in the time available, to divert attention away from the right place to be looking. He was completely successful in this, because ever since that day, most of the speculation has been about how the car got from 37SR to Stevenage Road rather than where else it might have been.

 

[sian morris]

WJ certainly. Not sure about HR, but DL definitely planted into WJ's consciousness what she was supposed to have seen. WJ's account is for me completely undermined by the two BT workers, who were there all day till 4pm and never saw the car. A taxi driver claimed to have seen it too, but was vague about the time. If it was after 4pm, his sighting can be accepted because it's not contradicted by the BT workers' account.

The car seems likely to have been dumped by the killer as far away from the actual scene as he could manage in the time available, to divert attention away from the right place to be looking. He was completely successful in this, because ever since that day, most of the speculation has been about how the car got from 37SR to Stevenage Road rather than where else it might have been.

 

[sian morris]

1. No, DL did not speak to WJ before WJ spoke to the police (AS). Don't know about HR, but I doubt it very much.

 

[sian morris]

1. No, DL did not speak to WJ before WJ spoke to the police (AS). Don't know about HR, but I doubt it very much.

MG went to Shorrolds Rd twice to search, so presumably it was when he went for the second time that HR gave him the 'abduction' description.

What I did find a bit odd in the AS book is that MG went to Fulham police station to report SL missing, but the queue was too long, and he went off to do some estate agency business. He then phoned SL's flat, then phoned the police. Why did he not phone SL's flat before going to the police station?

AS states 'all this worried G' (ie after his first visit to Shorrolds Rd and hearing HR's 'young couple' evidence) yet he aborts his first attempt to speak to the police, and carries on working, before finally phoning the police to report a missing person at 6.45pm.

 

[Pinkizzy]

MG went to Shorrolds Rd twice to search, so presumably it was when he went for the second time that HR gave him the 'abduction' description.

What I did find a bit odd in the AS book is that MG went to Fulham police station to report SL missing, but the queue was too long, and he went off to do some estate agency business. He then phoned SL's flat, then phoned the police. Why did he not phone SL's flat before going to the police station?

AS states 'all this worried G' (ie after his first visit to Shorrolds Rd and hearing HR's 'young couple' evidence) yet he aborts his first attempt to speak to the police, and carries on working, before finally phoning the police to report a missing person at 6.45pm.

MG phoned DL and local hospitals before calling the police, didn't he?

 

[WiseOwl]

MG went to Shorrolds Rd twice to search, so presumably it was when he went for the second time that HR gave him the 'abduction' description.

What I did find a bit odd in the AS book is that MG went to Fulham police station to report SL missing, but the queue was too long, and he went off to do some estate agency business. He then phoned SL's flat, then phoned the police. Why did he not phone SL's flat before going to the police station?

AS states 'all this worried G' (ie after his first visit to Shorrolds Rd and hearing HR's 'young couple' evidence) yet he aborts his first attempt to speak to the police, and carries on working, before finally phoning the police to report a missing person at 6.45pm.

I didn't know that MG went to Shorrolds Road twice that day, does it state in AS's book what times these were? Did he have someone with him both times? Did he enter the property both times?

Also where did AS get his information from about MG that day? Did he actually speak to MG himself or was it from the police reports from the time Suzy went missing?

Another thing that I am curious about is what time did MG return to the office after his extended lunch in the Crocodile Tears? I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere at all?

MG was interviewed twice in DV's book but at no time does he mention going to Shorrolds Road twice, entering the property and speaking to HR amongst other things. I would of thought that he would have vivid recollections of that particular day even 30-odd years later.