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

Status
Not open for further replies.
We don’t know she went to the pub on Friday, with her boyfriend, that’s the thing. Things have changed, NB: book. Others at time seemed to have thought she never went there on Friday, only restaurant next door, so this is all supported.

The diary is the key some think.
 
Before i fall down a rabbit hole looking for it, does anybody know off hand what SL's postcard depicted?
The reason? Thinking of this case..
Postcards are vital clue in unsolved 1984 sex murder of mum-of-two whose body was found dumped in woods

No record, she had a boyfriend on a sailing course in Corsica at time, so maybe him. Interesting you bring up as acting landlord also had her postcard. Whilst the diary & chequebook didn’t have her name, together with her address, this will have done & she lived really close.
 
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....


I still don't see how anyone would have learned the [acting] landlord would have had the items if he hadn't admitted it and phoned the bank.
 
What is the similar case in Wiltshire?

The old wikipedia article said:
"There was a similar case in 2006 involving a 48-year-old female estate agent in Wiltshire who met a client called Mr. Herring. She was attacked with a sharp object, causing cuts to her arm, and was pushed to the ground, but managed to free herself. The assailant ran away. Police have said there is no connection between this case and the disappearance of Lamplugh"

It references this BBC article: BBC NEWS | UK | England | Wiltshire | Estate agent assaulted at house

It just simply says police have no reason to connect the two, but does not say why they think that.
Both are female estate agents having appointments scheduled with fish ( :) ) and end up attacked or missing.
 
No record, she had a boyfriend on a sailing course in Corsica at time, so maybe him. Interesting you bring up as acting landlord also had her postcard. Whilst the diary & chequebook didn’t have her name, together with her address, this will have done & she lived really close.

The blank cheques in her chequebook would of had her name on them surely? Ok her address wouldn't be on them but her initials and her surname would be.

As for the postcard maybe someone had sent it to Suzy at her office address rather than her home?
 
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

Thanks. I wonder if we will ever know.
 
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.

Disgraceful. JMO
 
That was really sad seeing her say goodbye to her children in the reconstruction. Any thoughts on the recording of the man who phoned in?

They said he was local and may have known something about the murder - he mentioned a link to a watery grave just two days before she was found near Water gate farm
 
Last edited:
I still don't see how anyone would have learned the [acting] landlord would have had the items if he hadn't admitted it and phoned the bank.
The blank cheques in her chequebook would of had her name on them surely? Ok her address wouldn't be on them but her initials and her surname would be.

As for the postcard maybe someone had sent it to Suzy at her office address rather than her home?


To be clear, the reason I mentioned the card was that Clive said 'I phoned the bank the next morning as there was no telephone number in the chequebook or the diary'.

He is flagging the fact there were no contact details for Suzy at all, yet he had postcard too, that had her name and address on it I would think. Is he being defensive about contact details here, 'there were no contact details', perhaps because, there were some?

Videcette says he was looking for any changes in the account yet doesn't include the fact he said before in 1987, that a policeman called, Sarah called and he took a number down for her. Why? Also he accused earlier police of losing the note.
 
David Videcette inferred that the digs at Cannan's previous home etc were done on purpose to rile him, or that is what I took from book. I thought, surely not?! Then this article appears which makes no sense. (Wright).

The problem is no one knows about the back story and David's theory and he has no solid evidence or motive as Met see it. Or does he but he isn't and can't share it yet?

He does have some very good data but this isn't set out clearly anywhere yet for people to see.
 
To be clear, the reason I mentioned the card was that Clive said 'I phoned the bank the next morning as there was no telephone number in the chequebook or the diary'.

He is flagging the fact there were no contact details for Suzy at all, yet he had postcard too, that had her name and address on it I would think. Is he being defensive about contact details here, 'there were no contact details', perhaps because, there were some?

Videcette says he was looking for any changes in the account yet doesn't include the fact he said before in 1987, that a policeman called, Sarah called and he took a number down for her. Why? Also he accused earlier police of losing the note.

Hang on, do we know for sure its a RECEIVED postcard? Could it be a blank postcard or to be sent to someone else? JMO
 
I've just looked up a wiki for Steve Wright. It says he became a pub landlord (amongst his many jobs). I believe the pub landlord regarding Suzy's missing cheque book etc was a temporary relief pub landlord? Could it have been Steve Wright? Probably not, but just a thought. JMO MOO.

Steve Wright (serial killer) - Wikipedia

He may have killed a Londoner -

Ex-police officer links Jeanette Kempton cold case to Steve Wright

He was a pub landlord in Plumstead and Chislehurst (South London)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
214
Guests online
3,831
Total visitors
4,045

Forum statistics

Threads
592,146
Messages
17,964,119
Members
228,702
Latest member
cevans
Back
Top