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

[WiseOwl]

The diary found by the landlord - was this the same diary as the one with 'Mr Kipper' written in or was it a different one? What I mean by that is the 'Mr Kipper' diary a work one and the one found in the pub a private diary?

Also isn't it too much of a coincidence that Suzy disappeared on the very day she was due to collect her items from the landlord?

 

[Crusader21]

The diary found by the landlord - was this the same diary as the one with 'Mr Kipper' written in or was it a different one? What I mean by that is the 'Mr Kipper' diary a work one and the one found in the pub a private diary?

Also isn't it too much of a coincidence that Suzy disappeared on the very day she was due to collect her items from the landlord?

Two different diaries. The desk diary at Sturgis contained the Mr Kipper entry. Was taken by the police, all Suzy's previous appts were checked and all genuine.

Her personal diary was stolen / fell out of her bag along with chequebook and postcard. 1980s diary is 2021 mobile phone. All your contacts. notes, engagements, stack of personal and private info all accessable by flicking thru, no passwords, no encryption. Something you would like returned ASAP.

I too think too much of a coincedance.

Was Suzy in a confrontational mood, anger maybe, when going to get her items back?

That personal diary was given by landlord to the police a day or two later.

I assume it now is with the Lamplugh family as excerpts were read from Suzy's diaries in the recent Sky Crime Suzy Lamplugh documentary.

I wonder has David Videcette gotten access to it?

 

[Crusader21]

Has is the blonde woman outside 37 been definitely identified as another person named? If not, the chances that Suzy, who had an appointment to meet outside @ 12:45 pm is the most likely person.

It is speculation that the blonde lady at No37 is not Suzy Lamplugh.

Suzy's friend and now tv person is named in the Stevens book

Question is, if Suzy headed to pub in Putney to retrieve her items (and to ascertain how landlord came to have them in his possession), would time allow her to be spotted back at Shorrolds around 1pm?

Also, if Suzy had of have made it to the pub and then left and was seen at no37 Shorrolds Rd. She'd have taken her items with her, wouldn't she? The landlord still wouldn't have them ...

 

[WiseOwl]

Two different diaries. The desk diary at Sturgis contained the Mr Kipper entry. Was taken by the police, all Suzy's previous appts were checked and all genuine.

Her personal diary was stolen / fell out of her bag along with chequebook and postcard. 1980s diary is 2021 mobile phone. All your contacts. notes, engagements, stack of personal and private info all accessable by flicking thru, no passwords, no encryption. Something you would like returned ASAP.

I too think too much of a coincedance.

Was Suzy in a confrontational mood, anger maybe, when going to get her items back?

That personal diary was given by landlord to the police a day or two later.

I assume it now is with the Lamplugh family as excerpts were read from Suzy's diaries in the recent Sky Crime Suzy Lamplugh documentary.

I wonder has David Videcette gotten access to it?

Yes Suzy's diary would of contained all sorts of personal information and I really don't buy the story of her items being found on the steps of the pub. Also is it definite that Suzy arranged to meet the landlord that day or do we just have his word for it?

Videcette might have got access to the diary, perhaps he has worked closely with the family while writing his book.

 

[Crusader21]

Also is it definite that Suzy arranged to meet the landlord that day or do we just have his word for it?

Yes, definite for the Monday.

According to Stephens book landlord told police Suzy was to collect her items at 6pm Monday (remember that was odd because in her work desk diary there is a genuine client booked in too for 6pm)

I wonder has David Videcette found evidence to say that 100% Suzy was heading to pub at lunchtime?

A further thing to note, again according to the Stephens book. One year after Suzy went missing the landlord gave the police incredible 'new information'.

He stated that there was two telephone callers to the pub that Monday afternoon. Both callers looking for Suzy.

One call from a male claiming to be a policeman, and the other from a female called 'Sarah', who left a number for Suzy to ring when she arrived.

The landlord also claimed that he had given the police this info a few days after Suzy went missing! Police said if he did that info must have been lost.

All very strange indeed....

 

[WiseOwl]

Yes, definite for the Monday.

According to Stephens book landlord told police Suzy was to collect her items at 6pm Monday (remember that was odd because in her work desk diary there is a genuine client booked in too for 6pm)

I wonder has David Videcette found evidence to say that 100% Suzy was heading to pub at lunchtime?

A further thing to note, again according to the Stephens book. One year after Suzy went missing the landlord gave the police incredible 'new information'.

He stated that there was two telephone callers to the pub that Monday afternoon. Both callers looking for Suzy.

One call from a male claiming to be a policeman, and the other from a female called 'Sarah', who left a number for Suzy to ring when she arrived.

The landlord also claimed that he had given the police this info a few days after Suzy went missing! Police said if he did that info must have been lost.

All very strange indeed....

This landlord is getting more & more suspicious by the minute!

Do we know if the police checked out his movements on the day Suzy disappeared?

 

[Crusader21]

Do we know if the police checked out his movements on the day Suzy disappeared?

I don't know.

Remember police were concentrating their efforts on Shorrolds house showing and the 'Mr Kipper' client.

David Videcette has evidence that Suzy didn't actually take the key to the house with her! It remained on the Sturgis office hook and the police later retrieved it.

No key, no house viewing, no Mr Kipper ....

Re the landlord we do know because of the demands of his job / contract, Monday was his day off work.

He also lived in the domestic quarters above the actual bar.

The Stephens book also reported the facts that within the year the landlord moved out of London and his marriage ended.

There's always the possibility that Suzy could have met her killer en route to the pub.

Could someone have been watching her that Monday and as she emerged at lunchtime, was she abducted getting into her car on a side street facing Sturgis office, on the Fulham Road?

A stalker / kidnapper who took her against her will, perhaps driving her to Stevenage Rd were she was transferred in to his car?

Suzy's car was found by the police around 10pm that evening, abandoned at Stevenage Road, just below Craven Cottage.

 

[WiseOwl]

So if Suzy didn't go to Shorrolds Road that day, who the heck were the couple seen outside at 1.00 then? This only adds to the mystery.

I believe Suzy only knew on the Monday that her lost things were at the pub, IMO that could well be where she was heading at 12.45 and was intercepted on the way.

 

[Crusader21]

So if Suzy didn't go to Shorrolds Road that day, who the heck were the couple seen outside at 1.00 then? This only adds to the mystery.

There's a possibility Suzy's friends, the couple described in Stephens book whom Suzy was possibly entering in to a business venture with, arrived looking for Suzy that day.

The blonde lady and smartly dressed man could have either rang or visited Sturgis in person.

And upon consulting Suzy's desk diary, Sturgis staff would have told them where Suzy was - 37 Shorrolds Rd, conducting a house viewing.

Did the couple then head around there in the hope of finding Suzy, were they were spotted by a few different people?

I believe Suzy only knew on the Monday that her lost things were at the pub, IMO that could well be where she was heading at 12.45 and was intercepted on the way.

I agree but think she may well have actually reached the pub.

There a series of events evolved, resulting sadly in her loss of her life.

For me it's amazing that the theft, discovery and return of Suzy's valuables immediately prior to her vanishing off the face of the earth, have never featured on any of the many tv docs on the case over the years.

Everyone's focus is on Shorrolds Road and the couple seen there around 1pm.

 

[FOXINBOX]

It is speculation that the blonde lady at No37 is not Suzy Lamplugh.

Suzy's friend and now tv person is named in the Stevens book

Question is, if Suzy headed to pub in Putney to retrieve her items (and to ascertain how landlord came to have them in his possession), would time allow her to be spotted back at Shorrolds around 1pm?

Also, if Suzy had of have made it to the pub and then left and was seen at no37 Shorrolds Rd. She'd have taken her items with her, wouldn't she? The landlord still wouldn't have them ...

I thought this book wasn't published until August?

Why didn't Suzy's friend go down to the police station and make a statement at the time. I'm thinking that if it were my friend who had disappeared, I wouldn't be waiting for the police to call me. Is it a case of "Oh well, it might have been me." And who was her gentleman friend? Can he corroborate her statement?

Until the book comes out, there's not really much point in us thrashing about like fish out of water, and even then, it might be very interesting, but if the whole thing amounted to more than a hill of beans, there would be statements by the police and family...so we'll find out soon enough. I hope for the sake of the Lamplughs it comes to a real conclusion instead of raising their hopes yet again.

 

[Crusader21]

The Andrew Stephens book The Suzy Lamplugh Story came out late 1987.

It was the result of extensive investigations by a top journalist. And contains a great deal of information on the case that wouldn't have made the newspapers at the time and isn't generally known about today.

The new book by David Videcette indeed does come out early August.

Remember 2 years ago David Videcette delivered a file to the Met. He presented new evidence culminating in him naming the killer of Suzy Lamplugh.

His claim came after personal research interviewing 100 plus witnesses, tracking down and speaking for the first time to people associated with the case, etc.

You also have to look at the credentials of Videcette. He's a former serious crime detective. He knows how things work. Would he be able to get info via his connections etc that otherwise would be unavailable?

As of yet, the Met haven't acted upon his information.

David Videcette has given various interviews via podcasts etc on what he has unearthed.

Maybe Videcette's claims do amount to nothing more than 'a hill of beans'. We'll soon find out.....

 

[FOXINBOX]

I have looked at Videcette's credentials. It was the first thing I did when I heard the name. The point is, he presented a file to the Met, and they didn't or couldn't act on it. Look, I'm just urging caution, - big claims demand big proofs and none of us have seen the book yet
Cheers,
Fox

 

[Crusader21]

Fair enough Fox, spot on. I 100% get where you are coming from.

But as someone who has followed this tragedy from day one. Saw JC relatively quickly named as 'only person of interest'. And with the years of subsequent fruitless searches etc and nothing.

It feels very right to go back to the whole actual scenario around the disapperance.

What was happening in Suzy's life that morning? What were the actual pressing issues in her world that day?

Maybe and only then, can we understand the people and situations that faced Suzy Lamplugh as she exited through the Sturgis door that Monday lunchtime. And then try to piece together what really happened next....

 

[FOXINBOX]

Well, for 35 year I've followed the Lamplugh case too, although it was never one of my prime interests, because I'm interested in the psychology of the perp. and to put it bluntly, there wasn't one. I did some research on the unusual name, which it turns out, is more common in the north and quite a number in the USA [Who knew?]. I guess it derives from the village on the edge of the Lakes...all I could do when I didn't have the internet archive resources I have today.
Pretty sure Michael Sams was their first person of interest, after all, he did abduct an estate agent. They say Cannan was their main suspect from the get-go, but that's not true. It's also deeply illogical and shows how desperate the police were.
One thing we can all put to rest is the suitcase-in-the-canal. Brentford Police searched that canal in connection with another crime about 15 years ago, and they've stated categorically that they found nothing to connect with Suzy [It can be Googled].

 

[Terryb808]

Has is the blonde woman outside 37 been definitely identified as another person named? If not, the chances that Suzy, who had an appointment to meet outside @ 12:45 pm is the most likely person.

Also, although I disagree with Prof. Wilson's conclusions in the Lamplugh case, I respect him and his contacts enough to be sure he wouldn't have passed up sharing this detail in his programmes.

As Suzy probably had her personal items stolen by someone in the pub [?], I think it's very likely they were taken by a stalker. Criminals to leave their victim's possessions in public places to mislead the investigations. Sorry to do a re-tread on my past theories, but nobody does an abduction in Fulham unless they live or work there.

Professor Wilson is a first class criminologist and someone I respect. However, he and as far as I know no one else has ever questioned who was outside 37 Shorrolds at 1.00pm.
Additionally, no documentary has ever looked at SL’s missing items and the landlords odd story regarding how he found them. One year on two Met officers reinterviewed the landlord and highlighted that he had changed his original statement.
These two officers apparently were concerned about this change, but their concerns were never followed up.

 

[Terryb808]

Well, for 35 year I've followed the Lamplugh case too, although it was never one of my prime interests, because I'm interested in the psychology of the perp. and to put it bluntly, there wasn't one. I did some research on the unusual name, which it turns out, is more common in the north and quite a number in the USA [Who knew?]. I guess it derives from the village on the edge of the Lakes...all I could do when I didn't have the internet archive resources I have today.
Pretty sure Michael Sams was their first person of interest, after all, he did abduct an estate agent. They say Cannan was their main suspect from the get-go, but that's not true. It's also deeply illogical and shows how desperate the police were.
One thing we can all put to rest is the suitcase-in-the-canal. Brentford Police searched that canal in connection with another crime about 15 years ago, and they've stated categorically that they found nothing to connect with Suzy [It can be Googled].

I do think the suitcase in the canal (Brent river at Gallows Bridge) is a desperate attempt by JD former Met officer to justify fingering JC and the statement that he is the only suspect and they are not looking for anyone else.
On a technical note the river authority told me that back in 1986 the canals were dredged every 5 years (approx.). At the time the dredged materials would be dumped at a suitable location at the side of the canal.
A suitcase or large wheeled bag would be made of some kind of canvas material (I’m guessing) and over the years would degrade and disintegrate. So if JD’s witness is correct and the police search took place a significant time after 1986 they would find nothing.
Water flow and river traffic would also move material from its original dump sight.

 

[FOXINBOX]

Good posts Terry. Quite a lot to think about.

 

[FOXINBOX]

I do think the suitcase in the canal (Brent river at Gallows Bridge) is a desperate attempt by JD former Met officer to justify fingering JC and the statement that he is the only suspect and they are not looking for anyone else.
On a technical note the river authority told me that back in 1986 the canals were dredged every 5 years (approx.). At the time the dredged materials would be dumped at a suitable location at the side of the canal.
A suitcase or large wheeled bag would be made of some kind of canvas material (I’m guessing) and over the years would degrade and disintegrate. So if JD’s witness is correct and the police search took place a significant time after 1986 they would find nothing.
Water flow and river traffic would also move material from its original dump sight.

I thought about the life of a nylon suitcase, and if a plastic bottle takes 500 years to degrade, then it didn't just fall to bits, but when all's said and done - there is nothing to prove it ever existed, just hearsay.
I think Prof. Wilson is at a disadvantage in this inquiry [Dammit, it's so difficult not to say "Case"] as he is Birmingham based, and when I watched his Lamplugh programme recently, he clearly was oblivious to any form of transport barring Suzy's - i.e. Sturgis's - car. No mention of the underground, no mention of the Thames towpath, less than 100m to the west.
Does anyone know if Suzy had a car of her own?

 

[Crusader21]

Does anyone know if Suzy had a car of her own?

It appears she just had use of the Sturgis white fiesta, Fox.

Interesting that one of her Sturgis colleagues, used her motor that Monday morning for a house showing. He parked it in Whittingstall Road.

 

[Crusader21]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Can I ask for your opinions on what this witness claims she saw please?

BW (only witness who actually knew Suzy), came forward saying she saw Suzy after Suzy left her office that afternoon at 2.45pm.

If what she says is true, then Suzy was alive and well nearly 2 hours after leaving the office, heading Hammersmith direction on the Fulham Palace Road.

Where and what was Suzy (and her male passenger), doing for 2 hours before this siting?