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

[Officer Dibble]

The facts are these:

A man Suzy had, had a relationship lived about 14 doors away from 37 Shorrolds Rd. This was a brief relationship. His name is not on the record. He was ruled out.
He was NOT called Herring or Haddock or anything similar and he was ruled out.
There WAS a man called Herring who owned a BMW, he had a brother who was client of Sturgis and had been on their mailing lists. Both Herrings were ruled out and did not have romantic relationships with Suzy.

Suzy did not know a Haddock and this name doesn't feature at all.
The Herring brothers were known as Kip or Kipper as nicknames.
There was also a journalist in the road called Skipper that Suzy knew, also ruled out.

In a documentary recently it was said that Suzy made up the appointment in Shorrolds road using the name KIPPER as she possibly associated it with the references above, it was familiar in her mind and linked, possibly, to the road by association. It came to mind easily.

Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[Officer Dibble]

DBM Double post

 

[Officer Dibble]

The facts are these:

A man Suzy had, had a relationship lived about 14 doors away from 37 Shorrolds Rd. This was a brief relationship. His name is not on the record. He was ruled out.
He was NOT called Herring or Haddock or anything similar and he was ruled out.
There WAS a man called Herring who owned a BMW, he had a brother who was client of Sturgis and had been on their mailing lists. Both Herrings were ruled out and did not have romantic relationships with Suzy.

Suzy did not know a Haddock and this name doesn't feature at all.
The Herring brothers were known as Kip or Kipper as nicknames.
There was also a journalist in the road called Skipper that Suzy knew, also ruled out.

In a documentary recently it was said that Suzy made up the appointment in Shorrolds road using the name KIPPER as she possibly associated it with the references above, it was familiar in her mind and linked, possibly, to the road by association. It came to mind easily.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I guess Sturrgis appeared on her bank statement every month and that's how they knew her work number

You mean as her employer, paying her salary?

I guess Sturrgis appeared on her bank statement every month and that's how they knew her work number

Did Susy just say "that was the bank phoning me, my things have been found" to a busy employee who hadn't been listening to the calls? ie was it made up? Or did Susy phone the bank and there are phone records to prove this? JMO MOO

 

[WiseOwl]

Is the bank meant to have phoned Susie at work? I find that odd. What Bank knows your work phone number even back in 1986. My bank would have had my home phone number not a work number. Therefore IF 'the bank' phoned her was it a 'fake bank call' to say her items had been found? Did the Police check to see if officially the bank did contact her to say her cheque book etc was found? JMO MOO

This is a very good point OD.

In the documentary 'The Mystery of Suzy Lamplugh' it stated that the landlord phoned the bank on the Monday morning, who in turn phoned Suzy at work. But as you so rightly say, did the police ever confirm this phone call with the bank? If they did then fair enough. However, if they didn't then it could only have been either the pub landlord or a work colleague of Suzy's who gave this information.

It would be good to know if the police did confirm this phone call with both the landlord and the bank but somehow I have my doubts. AMOO

 

[FCA]

I think this recent book shows the confusion around the timeline, chequebook and diary narrative and acting landlord's actions or inactions.

It is not possible to get phone records from 86 and I think this was looked at and some had been lost too, etc. Itemisation just not around then for shorter calls. 'The Suzy Lamplugh Story' of 88 says that the last call was between the acting landlord's wife and Suzy.

The earlier book, as above, also states that the acting landlord had a call from a policeman, at a time when Suzy's disappearance had not yet been reported to the police and someone phoned for Suzy. Their name was Sarah. This meant the police team at the time spent time looking into all the Sarahs Suzy knew at the time. The acting Landlord also said he wrote a number down, presumably for Suzy when she came into the pub later to collect her things.

He said that he gave the piece of paper to the police team at the time but they had lost it.

All of the details on the pub and landlord were not really thoroughly checked out at the time as the only important thing was getting the diary back to the team so they could look for clues within it that might help solve the mystery and find out what had happened. The acting landlord had simply found the things and received some calls. This was not thought to be at all significant.

 

[The 'Wood]

Read all of this thread tonight. All I knew of this case was what was on Wikipedia (from some time ago, it appears, as the reference to a 'similar' case in Wiltshire with a Mr. Herring has disappeared from the page). So, for me, the landlord and the missing diary etc. are all new information. Where should I go to find all these basic facts? Do I need to read the books mentioned?
One specific question you guys can answer that I have is how did the police/public learn about the missing cheques and diary? Did they learn about it from the bank, the estate agency, or the landlord? It would seem odd if the landlord had stolen or found the items then did something to Suzy that he would then come forward with having them. As Fox said (something similar), if he had just then destroyed them no one would have been any wiser.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Read all of this thread tonight. All I knew of this case was what was on Wikipedia (from some time ago, it appears, as the reference to a 'similar' case in Wiltshire with a Mr. Herring has disappeared from the page). So, for me, the landlord and the missing diary etc. are all new information. Where should I go to find all these basic facts? Do I need to read the books mentioned?
One specific question you guys can answer that I have is how did the police/public learn about the missing cheques and diary? Did they learn about it from the bank, the estate agency, or the landlord? It would seem odd if the landlord had stolen or found the items then did something to Suzy that he would then come forward with having them. As Fox said (something similar), if he had just then destroyed them no one would have been any wiser.

What is the similar case in Wiltshire?

 

[Pinkizzy]

Read all of this thread tonight. All I knew of this case was what was on Wikipedia (from some time ago, it appears, as the reference to a 'similar' case in Wiltshire with a Mr. Herring has disappeared from the page). So, for me, the landlord and the missing diary etc. are all new information. Where should I go to find all these basic facts? Do I need to read the books mentioned?
One specific question you guys can answer that I have is how did the police/public learn about the missing cheques and diary? Did they learn about it from the bank, the estate agency, or the landlord? It would seem odd if the landlord had stolen or found the items then did something to Suzy that he would then come forward with having them. As Fox said (something similar), if he had just then destroyed them no one would have been any wiser.

Her boyfriend and Sturgis staff knew about the diary and chequebook

 

[FOXINBOX]

So, what is the theoretical timeline for the Lamolugh event?

 

[WiseOwl]

I think this recent book shows the confusion around the timeline, chequebook and diary narrative and acting landlord's actions or inactions.

It is not possible to get phone records from 86 and I think this was looked at and some had been lost too, etc. Itemisation just not around then for shorter calls. 'The Suzy Lamplugh Story' of 88 says that the last call was between the acting landlord's wife and Suzy.

The earlier book, as above, also states that the acting landlord had a call from a policeman, at a time when Suzy's disappearance had not yet been reported to the police and someone phoned for Suzy. Their name was Sarah. This meant the police team at the time spent time looking into all the Sarahs Suzy knew at the time. The acting Landlord also said he wrote a number down, presumably for Suzy when she came into the pub later to collect her things.

He said that he gave the piece of paper to the police team at the time but they had lost it.

All of the details on the pub and landlord were not really thoroughly checked out at the time as the only important thing was getting the diary back to the team so they could look for clues within it that might help solve the mystery and find out what had happened. The acting landlord had simply found the things and received some calls. This was not thought to be at all significant.

In 1986 all phones were landline and, unless my memory is deceiving me, owned by British Telecom. I remember that you used to receive a bill every month by post (e.g. June's bill would arrive in July, July's in August, etc), and I'm pretty sure that the calls were itemized on the bill (unless they were very short calls).

I would think that the police in '86 would have been able to confirm with BT the call the landlord made to the bank, the bank to Suzy's office and Suzy's call to the landlord. However, there doesn't appear to be any information anywhere to confirm that they did indeed check these calls out. We know they spoke to the landlord and Suzy's work colleagues but did they speak to the bank to confirm the phone call from the landlord did take place?

I just think there are some odd things about the landlord at the time Suzy disappeared but he doesn't appear to have ever been a suspect.

 

[FOXINBOX]

Sorry to repost, but there were mobile phones in 1986, the first were the Motorola Dyna TAC 8000X in 1983. My contact parted with hers so recently it's probably the one in the wikipedia photo

In 1986 all phones were landline

Only brick-sized mobiles in those days, although I bet Suzy's clique had them. You would still have had a phone at home, though. Info from wiki & a contact working in TV press at that time

 

[Terryb808]

Looking at how the police handled this they didn’t consider the landlord a suspect (the Stephen book says as much) so no reason to check with the bank or BT.
Reading DV’s book they just don’t seem to have been that switched on.

 

[WiseOwl]

Sorry to repost, but there were mobile phones in 1986, the first were the Motorola Dyna TAC 8000X in 1983. My contact parted with hers so recently it's probably the one in the wikipedia photo

I knew my memory was deceiving me!

I'm fairly sure though that the calls made by the landlord, the bank & the office would have been landline and that the police could have confirmed those calls if they had checked with British Telecom.

 

[FCA]

Mobiles were vanishingly rare five years later, let alone then.

In 1986 no one had mobiles in Estate agent offices or used them routinely at work.

It wasn't until about mid 90s that they became commonplace. Around 1989 a few might have carried an unreliable brick with bad reception, but in our insurance offices in 1992/3, no one had them, at all.

 

[Crusader21]

Read all of this thread tonight. All I knew of this case was what was on Wikipedia (from some time ago, it appears, as the reference to a 'similar' case in Wiltshire with a Mr. Herring has disappeared from the page). So, for me, the landlord and the missing diary etc. are all new information. Where should I go to find all these basic facts? Do I need to read the books mentioned?
One specific question you guys can answer that I have is how did the police/public learn about the missing cheques and diary? Did they learn about it from the bank, the estate agency, or the landlord? It would seem odd if the landlord had stolen or found the items then did something to Suzy that he would then come forward with having them. As Fox said (something similar), if he had just then destroyed them no one would have been any wiser.

Welcome to discussion Wood.

If you can, read The Suzy Lamplugh Story by Andrew Stephens.

According to David Videcette, Suzy's diary, chequebook and a postcard were recovered by the acting pub landlord on the Sunday night.

Upon instructions from landlord, the acting landlord phoned Suzy's bank on Monday morning.

Suzy rang bank too, presumably to cancel chequebook, and learned pub had them.

Suzy rang pub and headed at lunchtime to collect her items.

Suzy, the bank, Sturgis secretary and other pub staff knew the acting landlord had her items.

Acting landlord told police Suzy had arranged to collect items at 6pm. Suzy had a house viewing at 6pm.

Police recovered all items from acting landlord a day or two later.

Boyfriend Adam told police (and TV doc) Suzy's items where lost on Friday night?!

My guess is Suzy left items in the phone box she used outside the pub late Sunday night, and the items were then sat on an outside table where they were recovered by acting landlord.

If acting landlord had of just destroyed items, the police would have surely soon learned that he had them in his possession.

And if he had of said Suzy collected them and left, then that would have proved Suzy was at pub at lunchtime.

No he went for she was due at 6pm and didn't show up. All attention on Kipper / Shorrolds so he got lucky....

 

[V347]

Does anyone know where I can read the book by Andrew Stephens? Wild love to read but can’t really afford to shell out £40+ for it!

 

[Crusader21]

Anyone else notice the note at the start of David Videcette's book?

Names and events may have been changed etc

Obviously Videcette is wary of libel laws. The acting landlord for example, is given a fictious name in the book, but correctly pubically named in the 1988 Andrew Stephens book.

I wonder if any events have been changed? The book indicates Suzy may be buried in the pub, but I thought it was interesting that a whole chapter was included featuring the details of the girl who was buried, covered with debris, right beside a secluded railway track.

Is this actually a clue as to where Suzy's remains may actually be today?

 

[WiseOwl]

Welcome to discussion Wood.

If you can, read The Suzy Lamplugh Story by Andrew Stephens.

According to David Videcette, Suzy's diary, chequebook and a postcard were recovered by the acting pub landlord on the Sunday night.

Upon instructions from landlord, the acting landlord phoned Suzy's bank on Monday morning.

Suzy rang bank too, presumably to cancel chequebook, and learned pub had them.

Suzy rang pub and headed at lunchtime to collect her items.

Suzy, the bank, Sturgis secretary and other pub staff knew the acting landlord had her items.

Acting landlord told police Suzy had arranged to collect items at 6pm. Suzy had a house viewing at 6pm.

Police recovered all items from acting landlord a day or two later.

Boyfriend Adam told police (and TV doc) Suzy's items where lost on Friday night?!

My guess is Suzy left items in the phone box she used outside the pub late Sunday night, and the items were then sat on an outside table where they were recovered by acting landlord.

If acting landlord had of just destroyed items, the police would have surely soon learned that he had them in his possession.

And if he had of said Suzy collected them and left, then that would have proved Suzy was at pub at lunchtime.

No he went for she was due at 6pm and didn't show up. All attention on Kipper / Shorrolds so he got lucky....

Thanks for this post Crusader - very interesting! I hope you can clear some points up for me, no worries if you can't!

1. Where did Videcette obtain his information from?

2. The phoning of the bank story differs from the one that was in the 2 part documentary that was shown last week. In that they stated that the landlord (they never mentioned 'acting') phoned the bank to say he had Suzy's things and they in turn phoned Suzy - there was no mention of Suzy making a call to the bank. Was it the bank who confirmed this?

3. Suzy's last call from the office was to the pub where she apparently spoke to the landlord's wife - was this the normal landlord's wife or the acting landlord's wife?

4. How long had the acting landlord been, er, acting landlord?

5. I haven't seen anywhere that says that Suzy went to the pub on Sunday night? From what I've read she went to Worthing with friends in the afternoon and on the evening went to visit her parents, then when she got home she phoned her boyfriend Adam to arrange to meet up on Tuesday. Surely she would have mentioned it to him if she had been to the pub?

TIA.

 

[FCA]

To point 5, Wise Owl, someone posted a blog post earlier here, that seemed to cover some of the anomalies around the timeline. It seemed an early writer, reviewing Stephen's book, said that the acting landlord had found Suzy's things the night before she went missing. There is some evidence for this, from several sources and places, which Videcette covers in his book. Best to look at the book as it's delicate and complex. It seems Friday night was pushed out as the night Suzy lost things for various reasons.

The worrying thing is, if this WAS the case it could be another reason why this all went wrong from the start and went down the wrong track. As it was said, maybe the police created the haystacks that obscured the needles. Unwittingly.

The acting landlord was there alone on Monday and the pub might have been shut for a stock take it seems when Suzy arrived, if she did arrive, to get her things. The acting landlord and wife were newly trained up and there a short time and had just begun when Suzy went missing. The acting landlord now seems to say his wife wasn't there on Monday.

 

[WiseOwl]

To point 5, Wise Owl, someone posted a blog post earlier here, that seemed to cover some of the anomalies around the timeline. It seemed an early writer, reviewing Stephen's book, said that the acting landlord had found Suzy's things the night before she went missing. There is some evidence for this, from several sources and places, which Videcette covers in his book. Best to look at the book as it's delicate and complex. It seems Friday night was pushed out as the night Suzy lost things for various reasons.

The worrying thing is, if this WAS the case it could be another reason why this all went wrong from the start and went down the wrong track. As it was said, maybe the police created the haystacks that obscured the needles. Unwittingly.

The acting landlord was there alone on Monday and the pub might have been shut for a stock take it seems when Suzy arrived, if she did arrive, to get her things. The acting landlord and wife were newly trained up and there a short time and had just begun when Suzy went missing. The acting landlord now seems to say his wife wasn't there on Monday.

Thanks for replying FCA.

It's all very confusing as to exactly when & where the landlord found Suzy's things. As I said in my previous post there isn't any mention of Suzy going to the pub on Sunday at all but we know she went on Friday as she was with her boyfriend Adam & some other friends. Adam has said her things went missing on the Friday night and I don't suppose there's any reason to doubt him as he was there at the time. However if the missing items were discovered on Sunday then either they had been lying around in or near the pub for a couple of days before they were found or maybe Suzy did in fact visit the pub on Sunday evening but for some reason didn't tell Adam?

I do believe it's extremely likely that Suzy was heading to the pub on the Monday lunchtime to collect her things, but what happened then I really have no idea. If the landlord was involved in her disappearance then what would his motive be? After all, if it was true that he and his wife had only just started running the pub would he even know who Suzy was?

I have ordered my copy of Videcette's book, which is arriving on Monday and I can't wait to start reading it!