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

[Crusader21]

We've prob half a dozen regular posters here and maybe a dozen or so lurkers, people all very well read up on the SL case.

We've all taken to heart or not believed the evidence out there.

I wonder if a short list of credible possible scenarios was drawn up, would it be worthwhile / interesting to see, what our gut feelings are as to who we personally believe was most likely to have been responsible for SLs death?

Scenarios along the lines of -
1. JC
2. Murdered at the Pow
3. Partner, current or ex
4. Business Acquaintance
5. Random
6. Other

Perhaps an anonymous poll could be set up whereby each of us can vote (once) on what we think most likely happened?

Not scientific but may throw up interesting results? ....

 

[Crusader21]

We've prob half a dozen regular posters here and maybe a dozen or so lurkers, people all very well read up on the SL case.

We've all taken to heart or not believed the evidence out there.

I wonder if a short list of credible possible scenarios was drawn up, would it be worthwhile / interesting to see, what our gut feelings are as to who we personally believe was most likely to have been responsible for SLs death?

Scenarios along the lines of -
1. JC
2. Murdered at the Pow
3. Partner, current or ex
4. Business Acquaintance
5. Random
6. Other

Perhaps an anonymous poll could be set up whereby each of us can vote (once) on what we think most likely happened?

Not scientific but may throw up interesting results? ....

 

[WiseOwl]

The police questioned him and to allow him to appear with Suzy’s mother & father must have been happy with his alibi.
Like you I found his reaction to DV’s interview strange and suspicious. I just can’t get what he said at the end out of my head.
It just gave me the impression he knew what had happened to her.

It gave me the same impression as well - very strange.

His outburst at the end of the interview was extraordinary really, and his whole demeanour made you wonder why he had bothered to turn up for the interview at all. Unless his motive was to find out exactly what DV knew about Suzy's disappearance?

 

[WestLondoner]

@ Crusader 21

Could be interesting. It would be like being in a jury room: "OK, 3 of us think X did it and 9 don't - let the 3 walk us through why they think that and maybe it will persuade us?"

I was going to suggest something not dissimilar - a series of posts where we look at each piece of evidence (so far as we know what they are) in question and set out what about it is persuasive and what is a problem.

So for example here's a stab doing this at Harry Riglin's (HR's) account.

HR's statement
HR lived at 35 Shorrolds, next door to the house where SJL wrote in an appointment. He was 58 in 7/1986. He said - per the police press conference - that "he saw a fair-haired lady and this man [the pencil sketch of 'Mr Kipper'] leaving the property at about ten past one. And that is the last time she has been seen.’
Points to note
- He did not identify SJL as she had her back to him.
- It appears to have been a police assumption that this was SJL.
- JC was never put on an identity parade in front of HR to see if this were him.
What's persuasive?
- He gave this account the same day or the next when his memory would have been very fresh.
- He lived next door.
- He didn't mention a BMW, which is reassuring because in 1986, JC did not have one.
- It's consistent with the diary entry.
What's problematic?
- The sketch looks like frankly everyone, from John Cannan to Elvis to Morrissey to MG of Sturgis.
- How could SJL have been leaving the property if she couldn't get in?
- If she did have the keys, why didn't the killer just assault her inside the house as soon as he'd established it was empty?
- HR noticed two people leaving 37 Shorrolds without any fuss at 1pm, but he didn't notice when SF (blonde) and MG (smartly suited with dark hair) came round a few hours later and hammered at the door.
- Was this in fact the only visit? Was he describing these visitors all along?
What don't we know?
- Where SJL next went if this account is correct. With the viewing over, she would have wanted to head back to the office. What was said to make her go somewhere else?

 

[WiseOwl]

We've prob half a dozen regular posters here and maybe a dozen or so lurkers, people all very well read up on the SL case.

We've all taken to heart or not believed the evidence out there.

I wonder if a short list of credible possible scenarios was drawn up, would it be worthwhile / interesting to see, what our gut feelings are as to who we personally believe was most likely to have been responsible for SLs death?

Scenarios along the lines of -
1. JC
2. Murdered at the Pow
3. Partner, current or ex
4. Business Acquaintance
5. Random
6. Other

Perhaps an anonymous poll could be set up whereby each of us can vote (once) on what we think most likely happened?

Not scientific but may throw up interesting results? ....

Well I have always believed that it was someone known to Suzy who was responsible but obviously I don't know who. So 3, 4 & 6 would all come into play in my scenario!

I would say no to 1 & 5. As for 2, well of course it's a possibility but DV needs to prove (to me anyway) that the pub was closed that day and that CV was on his own.

Or he could just dig up that darn cellar and put us all out of our misery!

 

[rls11]

@ Crusader 21

Could be interesting. It would be like being in a jury room: "OK, 3 of us think X did it and 9 don't - let the 3 walk us through why they think that and maybe it will persuade us?"

I was going to suggest something not dissimilar - a series of posts where we look at each piece of evidence (so far as we know what they are) in question and set out what about it is persuasive and what is a problem.

So for example here's a stab doing this at Harry Riglin's (HR's) account.

HR's statement
HR lived at 35 Shorrolds, next door to the house where SJL wrote in an appointment. He was 58 in 7/1986. He said - per the police press conference - that "he saw a fair-haired lady and this man [the pencil sketch of 'Mr Kipper'] leaving the property at about ten past one. And that is the last time she has been seen.’
Points to note
- He did not identify SJL as she had her back to him.
- It appears to have been a police assumption that this was SJL.
- JC was never put on an identity parade in front of HR to see if this were him.
What's persuasive?
- He gave this account the same day or the next when his memory would have been very fresh.
- He lived next door.
- He didn't mention a BMW, which is reassuring because in 1986, JC did not have one.
- It's consistent with the diary entry.
What's problematic?
- The sketch looks like frankly everyone, from John Cannan to Elvis to Morrissey to MG of Sturgis.
- How could SJL have been leaving the property if she couldn't get in?
- If she did have the keys, why didn't the killer just assault her inside the house as soon as he'd established it was empty?
- HR noticed two people leaving 37 Shorrolds without any fuss at 1pm, but he didn't notice when SF (blonde) and MG (smartly suited with dark hair) came round a few hours later and hammered at the door.
- Was this in fact the only visit? Was he describing these visitors all along?
What don't we know?
- Where SJL next went if this account is correct. With the viewing over, she would have wanted to head back to the office. What was said to make her go somewhere else?

Your summary of one single witness account is a great example of how the facts as we believe them in this case just don't add up... we don't think it can have been SL at 37 Shorrolds because we don't believe she had the keys. However, as you state, HR gave his account to the police really soon after the event and I can't imagine he had any personal agenda or involvement in the case. I think, therefore, that he must be mistaken with his timing and recalled somehow the evening visit of MG and SF (although I do have to admit to finding it difficult to believe that someone could confuse what happened at lunchtime and evening by the following day...)

I like this way of summarising and focussing thoughts, by the way, thanks @WestLondoner !

 

[Terryb808]

I think as a reference point Andrew Stephen’s book is invaluable, it was written close to the actual event and he had unprecedented access to police files.
Additionally, as JC was not even identified as a suspect so there’s no prejudice in place.
ris11 makes a good point about HR, he recounted his sightings the day after, so he should have been able to be accurate about the time.
What HR could have witnessed was another couple other than SJL & the theoretical Mr Kipper, he didn’t actually identify the female as SJL, he was more focused on the male.
I understand that HR made some other more radical claims that he saw SJL bungled into a van which he later retracted. This makes him somewhat unreliable as a witness, however, I do believe his initial statement to the police to be accurate.

 

[Terryb808]

We've prob half a dozen regular posters here and maybe a dozen or so lurkers, people all very well read up on the SL case.

We've all taken to heart or not believed the evidence out there.

I wonder if a short list of credible possible scenarios was drawn up, would it be worthwhile / interesting to see, what our gut feelings are as to who we personally believe was most likely to have been responsible for SLs death?

Scenarios along the lines of -
1. JC
2. Murdered at the Pow
3. Partner, current or ex
4. Business Acquaintance
5. Random
6. Other

Perhaps an anonymous poll could be set up whereby each of us can vote (once) on what we think most likely happened?

Not scientific but may throw up interesting results? ....

Crusader, you’ve covered all the basic possibilities and a case could be made for any of them.
DV’s book has opened up one new one for me, however, if you have followed this case in detail the circumstantial evidence is strongest for options 1 & 2.
JC was an opportunist rapist & murderer, he was witnessed (be it reported at the time, but only surfacing recently) looking for women in the same area as SJL.
He was known to car jack his victims and also hold them captive before murdering them. He also (maybe) even committed rape and murder while on his prerelease period.
According to an unconfirmed witness he was seen dumping a large case / wheeled bag in the Grand Union Canal at Gallows Bridge on the Thursday after SJL disappeared. This sighting was at 5.00am and its reasonable to think that you’re not likely to bump into anyone at this time of the day.
He was obsessed with SJL, this is apparent from the registration number on SB mini containing SLP.
If you compare this to the POW option, we have very little evidence that SJL died at this location. On face value she lost her belongings and invented Mr Kipper to allow her to get them back, that’s about it.
The contents of her personal diary may alter this, but as far as I know they have not been public in full or part.

 

[WestLondoner]

The HR account is difficult however you look at it. On the one hand how could he get the time so wrong when the event was so recent, but on the other, if he is right about 1pm why didn't he register the much noisier visit later when SF and MG hammered at the door?

Perhaps one way to resolve this is to say that the witnesses agree there was one visit to Shorrolds that day. HR thinks it was by a pair who looked like SF and MG and was at 1pm. The other witnesses are SF and MG themselves and they say it was at 6ish. We have nobody who says there were two visits at different times.

On balance I favour the SF / MG reading as fitting more of the facts, but it is baffling either way.

 

[Crusader21]

I was going to suggest something not dissimilar - a series of posts where we look at each piece of evidence (so far as we know what they are) in question and set out what about it is persuasive and what is a problem.

So for example here's a stab doing this at Harry Riglin's (HR's) account.

HR's statement
HR lived at 35 Shorrolds, next door to the house where SJL wrote in an appointment. He was 58 in 7/1986. He said - per the police press conference - that "he saw a fair-haired lady and this man [the pencil sketch of 'Mr Kipper'] leaving the property at about ten past one. And that is the last time she has been seen.’
Points to note
- He did not identify SJL as she had her back to him.
- It appears to have been a police assumption that this was SJL.
- JC was never put on an identity parade in front of HR to see if this were him.
What's persuasive?
- He gave this account the same day or the next when his memory would have been very fresh.
- He lived next door.
- He didn't mention a BMW, which is reassuring because in 1986, JC did not have one.
- It's consistent with the diary entry.
What's problematic?
- The sketch looks like frankly everyone, from John Cannan to Elvis to Morrissey to MG of Sturgis.
- How could SJL have been leaving the property if she couldn't get in?
- If she did have the keys, why didn't the killer just assault her inside the house as soon as he'd established it was empty?
- HR noticed two people leaving 37 Shorrolds without any fuss at 1pm, but he didn't notice when SF (blonde) and MG (smartly suited with dark hair) came round a few hours later and hammered at the door.
- Was this in fact the only visit? Was he describing these visitors all along?
What don't we know?
- Where SJL next went if this account is correct. With the viewing over, she would have wanted to head back to the office. What was said to make her go somewhere else?

Excellent work WL.

I feel HR's account needs to be taken into context with two other witnesses - an unnamed person's account plus ND's witness statement.

Click on the link below @ 20.20.

As was stated before, ND's account provides us with the classic SL with Mr Kipper, complete with champaign bottle etc.

Do you think ND's account is bone fide or perhaps malevolent in intent (ie designed 'throw' the investigation off course)?

It would be interesting to know ND's background. I may have read somewhere that he was involved in jewellery business, anyone help with him?

 

[WiseOwl]

The HR account is difficult however you look at it. On the one hand how could he get the time so wrong when the event was so recent, but on the other, if he is right about 1pm why didn't he register the much noisier visit later when SF and MG hammered at the door?

Perhaps one way to resolve this is to say that the witnesses agree there was one visit to Shorrolds that day. HR thinks it was by a pair who looked like SF and MG and was at 1pm. The other witnesses are SF and MG themselves and they say it was at 6ish. We have nobody who says there were two visits at different times.

On balance I favour the SF / MG reading as fitting more of the facts, but it is baffling either way.

If HR was correct about the timing of the couple he claims he saw around 1.00, it would fit in with the time that Suzy left work (12.40), getting in her car & driving to Shorrolds Road to meet a client. If he did see a couple next door that day and the woman wasn't Suzy, then who else could it have been?

The trouble is different sources inevitably quote different times. For instance, in your post MG said he went to Shorrolds Road at 6.00 whereas in the Crimewatch show it states it was around 4.30.

Also in the Crimewatch show it says that MG phoned the police to say that Suzy was missing at around 5.30, yet in DV's book it says he didn't call them until 6.45 pm!

I think the information in the Crimewatch episode is invaluable as it was only 3 months after Suzy went missing and events were very much still in people's minds.

What we have established is that Suzy left her office around 12.40, and her car was almost definitely in the place where it was found in Stevenage Road at 5.15 pm.

That just leaves four and a half hours to fill in the blanks!

 

[Terryb808]

If HR was correct about the timing of the couple he claims he saw around 1.00, it would fit in with the time that Suzy left work (12.40), getting in her car & driving to Shorrolds Road to meet a client. If he did see a couple next door that day and the woman wasn't Suzy, then who else could it have been?

The trouble is different sources inevitably quote different times. For instance, in your post MG said he went to Shorrolds Road at 6.00 whereas in the Crimewatch show it states it was around 4.30.

Also in the Crimewatch show it says that MG phoned the police to say that Suzy was missing at around 5.30, yet in DV's book it says he didn't call them until 6.45 pm!

I think the information in the Crimewatch episode is invaluable as it was only 3 months after Suzy went missing and events were very much still in people's minds.

What we have established is that Suzy left her office around 12.40, and her car was almost definitely in the place where it was found in Stevenage Road at 5.15 pm.

That just leaves four and a half hours to fill in the blanks!

This is spot on, these two facts are set in stone, or as near we can get to that. What’s needed now is to look at what might have happened in the 4.5 hours.
It may not actually be 4.5 hours if for example DV is correct because Colin Vole would need to be back at the PoW for opening time (5.00pm I think). This is just an example, we’d need to do this for JC and any other possible suspects, put in any witness sightings and see which one fits best.

 

[WestLondoner]

Noel Devere's (ND1) statement
ND1 came forward after the Crimewatch "reconstruction". He was "said to be an unemployed bar and cellarman at the time, and his account seemed to stand out in a rather odd way. It was literally everything the police claimed had happened to Suzy in their suggested story, repeated verbatim. ND1 would claim that he’d been walking along Shorrolds Road at 12.50 p.m., on the afternoon of Monday, 28 July, when he’d seen a woman. She was standing beneath a Sturgis ‘For Sale’ sign in the gateway of 37 Shorrolds Road. He’d remembered the house, he said, because it was one he particularly liked. He described the woman as clutching a set of keys in her right hand on a large yellow tag and looking out toward the street. Although he hadn’t taken much notice of the woman or her appearance at the time, following weeks of non-stop media coverage about the case, he had now come to believe this woman might be Suzy." (DV's summary)
Points to note
DV traced him via the electoral roll to a council house and had a bizarre conversation with a woman occupant. She must have added him to the electoral roll, and entered the house with a man, but claimed she didn't know any ND1 and nobody else lived there.
What's persuasive
- Time and observations are consistent with the work diary entry and HR account.
- Would he have known the keys would be on a yellow tag unless he had really seen her?
- He added detail, such as the champagne and BMW.
- Another witness, ND2 (Nicholas Doyle) also thinks he saw a man and a woman in Shorrolds between noon and 4pm.
What's problematic
- He concedes that his ID of SJL was influenced by the media coverage.
- Everybody who met SJL noticed her looks. He apparently noticed her enough to recall a yellow key fob he didn't register her looks, which seems backwards.
- Three months later, how can he be sure of the date, place and time? Who did any of us see, doing what and at what time, in July 2021?
- Why is it an echo of the police reconstruction? Was he recalling what he saw in the street or what he saw on TV?
- He was unemployed and not especially bright. Was this just something to do?
What don't we know?
- Was the accuracy of his recall ever tested? DV tested WJ's recall (she of the 12.40 Fiesta sighting) by asking her what car he'd arrived in 45 minutes ago. She got it completely wrong, which calls her 1986 information into question. Was any similar validation done of ND1's account, eg what was the weather like, what colour are the walls in the police station's reception area, etc?

 

[WiseOwl]

Noel Devere's (ND1) statement
ND1 came forward after the Crimewatch "reconstruction". He was "said to be an unemployed bar and cellarman at the time, and his account seemed to stand out in a rather odd way. It was literally everything the police claimed had happened to Suzy in their suggested story, repeated verbatim. ND1 would claim that he’d been walking along Shorrolds Road at 12.50 p.m., on the afternoon of Monday, 28 July, when he’d seen a woman. She was standing beneath a Sturgis ‘For Sale’ sign in the gateway of 37 Shorrolds Road. He’d remembered the house, he said, because it was one he particularly liked. He described the woman as clutching a set of keys in her right hand on a large yellow tag and looking out toward the street. Although he hadn’t taken much notice of the woman or her appearance at the time, following weeks of non-stop media coverage about the case, he had now come to believe this woman might be Suzy." (DV's summary)
Points to note
DV traced him via the electoral roll to a council house and had a bizarre conversation with a woman occupant. She must have added him to the electoral roll, and entered the house with a man, but claimed she didn't know any ND1 and nobody else lived there.
What's persuasive
- Time and observations are consistent with the work diary entry and HR account.
- Would he have known the keys would be on a yellow tag unless he had really seen her?
- He added detail, such as the champagne and BMW.
- Another witness, ND2 (Nicholas Doyle) also thinks he saw a man and a woman in Shorrolds between noon and 4pm.
What's problematic
- He concedes that his ID of SJL was influenced by the media coverage.
- Everybody who met SJL noticed her looks. He apparently noticed her enough to recall a yellow key fob he didn't register her looks, which seems backwards.
- Three months later, how can he be sure of the date, place and time? Who did any of us see, doing what and at what time, in July 2021?
- Why is it an echo of the police reconstruction? Was he recalling what he saw in the street or what he saw on TV?
- He was unemployed and not especially bright. Was this just something to do?
What don't we know?
- Was the accuracy of his recall ever tested? DV tested WJ's recall (she of the 12.40 Fiesta sighting) by asking her what car he'd arrived in 45 minutes ago. She got it completely wrong, which calls her 1986 information into question. Was any similar validation done of ND1's account, eg what was the weather like, what colour are the walls in the police station's reception area, etc?

Having just watched the Crimewatch reconstruction again it was in fact Doyle, not Devere, that said he saw the man holding a bottle of champagne (with ribbons on).

So we have:

12.50 ND1 passes Suzy outside 37 Shorrolds Road.

1.00 HR saw a couple leave 37 Shorrolds Road, then turn round and look up at the house. He also gave a description of the man (Which, to me, resembles Suzy's boss MG).

Around 1.00 ND2 walks past the couple and notices the man holding the bottle of champagne (with ribbons on). He also gives a description of the man (which looks nothing like the description given by HR).

So I guess the timeline would fit; Suzy leaves work at 12.40, goes to Whittingstall Road, gets in her car and drives to Shorrolds Road and is there around 12.50.

So is it possible that one or more of these witnesses are correct?

 

[WestLondoner]

Thanks for the correction re the champagne.

The trouble with ND2's statement is he couldn't remember where or when this happened except that it was somewhere in Shorrolds Road between 12 and 4 . That he is this vague actually argues, in a way, for his account being reliable as far as it goes, because he doesn't claim an improbably accurate level of recall of the events of 3 months ago.

The champagne detail aside, both his and HR's statements could be referring to a 4.30 visit by MG.

 

[Crusader21]

As ND1 came forward to the police after Crimewatch (Oct 86), I take it that he is not the same unnamed man (in the CW reconstruction), who at 12.50 when walking home, 'saw SL at the gateway seemingly waiting for someone'?

Has anyone any info on this male witness?

 

[Crusader21]

As Terry said, I wonder what possessed HR to add to his testimony re SL being bundled in to a car?!

Surely such an observation / revelation would have been of a primary nature ....

 

[WestLondoner]

As ND1 came forward to the police after Crimewatch (Oct 86), I take it that he is not the same unnamed man (in the CW reconstruction), who at 12.50 when walking home, 'saw SL at the gateway seemingly waiting for someone'?

Has anyone any info on this male witness?

Probably ND2, Nicholas Doyle.

 

[WestLondoner]

As Terry said, I wonder what possessed HR to add to his testimony re SL being bundled in to a car?!

Surely such an observation / revelation would have been of a primary nature ....

It does kind of undermine the reliability of the original sighting.

 

[Crusader21]

Probably ND2, Nicholas Doyle.

No look at the org CW reconstuction again, there is (another) unnamed witness featured (alongside Doyle and HR).

I don't think he is Devere, who is he?