You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 July 1986
- Thread starter Pinkizzy
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I think sadly that 30 years is far too long to get anything remotely accurate. This is why Andrew Stephen’s book is such a good reference point.He didn't include BW in his book because her sighting that afternoon scuppers his theory!
However, I do think he missed a good opportunity by not including BW in his book. After all, a few of the people he interviewed for his book had changed their story from '86 and who's to say BW hadn't changed hers? It would be extremely interesting to hear nowadays what she believes she saw that afternoon.
WestLondoner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,173
- Reaction score
- 2,792
The consensus seems to be (and I would agree) that while DV has done a decent job of showing the initial police supposition was wrong and that SJL possibly, even probably never even went to Shorrolds, he doesn't stand up his own hypothesis as far we can tell from what he has so far published.
In no particular order, the points in favour of his hypothesis seem to be:
- something of relevance happened there that weekend because SJL did lose her diary there
- she rearranged her day in a hurry to go an get it back
- in 1986 AG said she was at the pub on Friday; in 1987 and recently CV said she was there on Sunday; recently AG said he had never been to that pub at all
- she was not at home on Sunday evening, but spoke to AG on the phone
- the pub has two outside tables and a payphone by its front door which is where her stuff was found, so she was at the pub with someone unknown and probably phoned AG from there
- that person could be the abductor, has never been identified, and was the last to see her socially
- she could have been intercepted en route to the pub by that same person if somehow he knew she was heading there.
The problems with it seem to be as follows:
- no motive for anyone at the pub to kill her
- the person most focused on, CV, was new to the pub and the area, so if he did it he must have spontaneously killed on sight someone he'd never previously met
- the accident scenario makes little sense, as hiding an accident makes it look worse i.e. like homicide instead
- the pub may have been open normally so scant opportunity
- it's unclear how a killer at the pub would have located her car to dispose of it
- it's unclear why a killer at the pub would hide her body on the premises under dateable rubbish, as any later discovery would narrow the suspect field down very quickly to 1 or 2 people
- a much better dumping place would be the railway cutting right behind the pub, which like most railway lines can't easily be accessed from nearby roads or backing properties (and so has probably remained undisturbed since 1986)
- the BW sighting is unexplained
- the seat position of SJL's car, if changed by the killer, does not seem right for CV as he is described
- much of the theory seems to rely on the account of events there that day given by the person now implied to be the suspect.
Unless there is significantly more DV can't say, I don't buy the CV-did-it inference. DV's main helpful contribution has been to debunk the police approach of assuming an appointment took place despite the mutually contradictory statements about it. He's also shown that the family's involvement significantly derailed the official inquiry, as it was the family who took WJ's statement about the car, who held press conferences of their own at which they disseminated flattering but out of date and misleading pictures of SJL, and who pressed the police into naming JC.
In no particular order, the points in favour of his hypothesis seem to be:
- something of relevance happened there that weekend because SJL did lose her diary there
- she rearranged her day in a hurry to go an get it back
- in 1986 AG said she was at the pub on Friday; in 1987 and recently CV said she was there on Sunday; recently AG said he had never been to that pub at all
- she was not at home on Sunday evening, but spoke to AG on the phone
- the pub has two outside tables and a payphone by its front door which is where her stuff was found, so she was at the pub with someone unknown and probably phoned AG from there
- that person could be the abductor, has never been identified, and was the last to see her socially
- she could have been intercepted en route to the pub by that same person if somehow he knew she was heading there.
The problems with it seem to be as follows:
- no motive for anyone at the pub to kill her
- the person most focused on, CV, was new to the pub and the area, so if he did it he must have spontaneously killed on sight someone he'd never previously met
- the accident scenario makes little sense, as hiding an accident makes it look worse i.e. like homicide instead
- the pub may have been open normally so scant opportunity
- it's unclear how a killer at the pub would have located her car to dispose of it
- it's unclear why a killer at the pub would hide her body on the premises under dateable rubbish, as any later discovery would narrow the suspect field down very quickly to 1 or 2 people
- a much better dumping place would be the railway cutting right behind the pub, which like most railway lines can't easily be accessed from nearby roads or backing properties (and so has probably remained undisturbed since 1986)
- the BW sighting is unexplained
- the seat position of SJL's car, if changed by the killer, does not seem right for CV as he is described
- much of the theory seems to rely on the account of events there that day given by the person now implied to be the suspect.
Unless there is significantly more DV can't say, I don't buy the CV-did-it inference. DV's main helpful contribution has been to debunk the police approach of assuming an appointment took place despite the mutually contradictory statements about it. He's also shown that the family's involvement significantly derailed the official inquiry, as it was the family who took WJ's statement about the car, who held press conferences of their own at which they disseminated flattering but out of date and misleading pictures of SJL, and who pressed the police into naming JC.
I think sadly that 30 years is far too long to get anything remotely accurate. This is why Andrew Stephen’s book is such a good reference point.He didn't include BW in his book because her sighting that afternoon scuppers his theory!
However, I do think he missed a good opportunity by not including BW in his book. After all, a few of the people he interviewed for his book had changed their story from '86 and who's to say BW hadn't changed hers? It would be extremely interesting to hear nowadays what she believes she saw that afternoon.
A well put together summary from a very logical and analytical point of view. As you say while DV identified a number of things wrong with the 1986 timeline, he hasn’t shown that SJL actually made it to the PoW that day.The consensus seems to be (and I would agree) that while DV has done a decent job of showing the initial police supposition was wrong and that SJL possibly, even probably never even went to Shorrolds, he doesn't stand up his own hypothesis as far we can tell from what he has so far published.
In no particular order, the points in favour of his hypothesis seem to be:
- something of relevance happened there that weekend because SJL did lose her diary there
- she rearranged her day in a hurry to go an get it back
- in 1986 AG said she was at the pub on Friday; in 1987 and recently CV said she was there on Sunday; recently AG said he had never been to that pub at all
- she was not at home on Sunday evening, but spoke to AG on the phone
- the pub has two outside tables and a payphone by its front door which is where her stuff was found, so she was at the pub with someone unknown and probably phoned AG from there
- that person could be the abductor, has never been identified, and was the last to see her socially
- she could have been intercepted en route to the pub by that same person if somehow he knew she was heading there.
The problems with it seem to be as follows:
- no motive for anyone at the pub to kill her
- the person most focused on, CV, was new to the pub and the area, so if he did it he must have spontaneously killed on sight someone he'd never previously met
- the accident scenario makes little sense, as hiding an accident makes it look worse i.e. like homicide instead
- the pub may have been open normally so scant opportunity
- it's unclear how a killer at the pub would have located her car to dispose of it
- it's unclear why a killer at the pub would hide her body on the premises under dateable rubbish, as any later discovery would narrow the suspect field down very quickly to 1 or 2 people
- a much better dumping place would be the railway cutting right behind the pub, which like most railway lines can't easily be accessed from nearby roads or backing properties (and so has probably remained undisturbed since 1986)
- the BW sighting is unexplained
- the seat position of SJL's car, if changed by the killer, does not seem right for CV as he is described
- much of the theory seems to rely on the account of events there that day given by the person now implied to be the suspect.
Unless there is significantly more DV can't say, I don't buy the CV-did-it inference. DV's main helpful contribution has been to debunk the police approach of assuming an appointment took place despite the mutually contradictory statements about it. He's also shown that the family's involvement significantly derailed the official inquiry, as it was the family who took WJ's statement about the car, who held press conferences of their own at which they disseminated flattering but out of date and misleading pictures of SJL, and who pressed the police into naming JC.
I agree about the disposal point, I’ve always been in favour of the railway embankment for the reasons you say. Directly behind the PoW it’s far enough away from the railway line for workers never to need to get near.
This for me (if DV has it right) is the most likely location, and also the most difficult to get access to.
What is worst case is that if DV is correct and CV moved her well away from the PoW, I say this because there’s absolutely no evidence to make the police look at questioning him.
I don’t agree with and am not a fan of the Mets JD, but in this case being totally objective I can see why the Met won’t do anything.
WestLondoner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,173
- Reaction score
- 2,792
I agree about the disposal point, I’ve always been in favour of the railway embankment for the reasons you say. Directly behind the PoW it’s far enough away from the railway line for workers never to need to get near.
This for me (if DV has it right) is the most likely location, and also the most difficult to get access to.
What is worst case is that if DV is correct and CV moved her well away from the PoW, I say this because there’s absolutely no evidence to make the police look at questioning him.
There's a substantial fence separating the backs of the houses from the railway embankment - for obvious reasons, there always is - but if you wanted to dump a body, and you had unobserved access, you could work round that (two ladders or something). Once you're on the embankment the obvious next step would be to dump the body some way from wherever you had gained access from, as you've surmised. If SJL is 5 or 6 buildings along this would indeed be all the Met needed not to pay any attention to the PoW.
Getting legitimate access now would be extremely difficult, I'd think, because safety. But there's rarely any reason for anyone to walk along an embankment - maybe they prune the trees every ten years or something - so if you had to get rid of a body in a city centre it's a good choice.
Crusader21
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2021
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 892
Thanks to @WestLondoner for his recent post.
Brings this guy to my mind .....
I've often find it very strange that (according to the Stephen's book), there was a rich new boyfriend in SLs life who for one reason or another, bearly appears in the narrative at all!
He's the un-named friend of AL, whom SL stayed overnight / cheated with, at the new man's Mayfair apartment when Adam was away on holiday.
SL was pictured siting on his knee at the party on the Saturday night! Had he anything to do with the £3K that SL was telling people at the party, she was about to land???
Was he the guy she was with late on the Sunday evening at the PoW? If so, he may well have known about the missing items and possibly that SL was going to pick them up Monday lunchtime. Had he that knowledge that meant could have met SL en route?
SL was down to attend a party on the Tuesday night again at the rich man's Mayfair pad.
The rich man was reported to have left the UK, for the Bahamas not long after this incident.
One wonders in to the level of police interest (if any) in to this guy?
I've often wondered is there a huge missing piece of this puzzle that the gen public aren't aware of, that that would shed a whole new light on what we do know of that Monday?
I've read too that he had a business premises in Putney (in '86) and is now back in the UK, and (oddly) still an aquaintance of AL. Though can't confirm those things ....
Anyone any more info on that un-named person of interest?
https://content.assets.pressassociation.io/2018/10/30100017/a718a2f0-45f6-4f4d-9cbe-7b3bf1a5b33e.jpg
Brings this guy to my mind .....
I've often find it very strange that (according to the Stephen's book), there was a rich new boyfriend in SLs life who for one reason or another, bearly appears in the narrative at all!
He's the un-named friend of AL, whom SL stayed overnight / cheated with, at the new man's Mayfair apartment when Adam was away on holiday.
SL was pictured siting on his knee at the party on the Saturday night! Had he anything to do with the £3K that SL was telling people at the party, she was about to land???
Was he the guy she was with late on the Sunday evening at the PoW? If so, he may well have known about the missing items and possibly that SL was going to pick them up Monday lunchtime. Had he that knowledge that meant could have met SL en route?
SL was down to attend a party on the Tuesday night again at the rich man's Mayfair pad.
The rich man was reported to have left the UK, for the Bahamas not long after this incident.
One wonders in to the level of police interest (if any) in to this guy?
I've often wondered is there a huge missing piece of this puzzle that the gen public aren't aware of, that that would shed a whole new light on what we do know of that Monday?
I've read too that he had a business premises in Putney (in '86) and is now back in the UK, and (oddly) still an aquaintance of AL. Though can't confirm those things ....
Anyone any more info on that un-named person of interest?
https://content.assets.pressassociation.io/2018/10/30100017/a718a2f0-45f6-4f4d-9cbe-7b3bf1a5b33e.jpg
I asked if anyone local could confirm what access to the rear of the PoW is like now, and what was the in 1986.There's a substantial fence separating the backs of the houses from the railway embankment - for obvious reasons, there always is - but if you wanted to dump a body, and you had unobserved access, you could work round that (two ladders or something). Once you're on the embankment the obvious next step would be to dump the body some way from wherever you had gained access from, as you've surmised. If SJL is 5 or 6 buildings along this would indeed be all the Met needed not to pay any attention to the PoW.
Getting legitimate access now would be extremely difficult, I'd think, because safety. But there's rarely any reason for anyone to walk along an embankment - maybe they prune the trees every ten years or something - so if you had to get rid of a body in a city centre it's a good choice.
On Google Earth you can see cars at the rear of the building next door to the PoW. You can drive round the back, and it looks like almost to the PoW fence. If so then you could bring a car round the back and move a body this way.
I have read somewhere (maybe the Stephen book) that the Bahamas man was questioned and the poor old Met officers had to do this in the Bahamas. They did eliminate him, but going on the way this was handled it’s not a recommendation of his innocence.Thanks to @WestLondoner for his recent post.
Brings this guy to my mind .....
I've often find it very strange that (according to the Stephen's book), there was a rich new boyfriend in SLs life who for one reason or another, bearly appears in the narrative at all!
He's the un-named friend of AL, whom SL stayed overnight / cheated with, at the new man's Mayfair apartment when Adam was away on holiday.
SL was pictured siting on his knee at the party on the Saturday night! Had he anything to do with the £3K that SL was telling people at the party, she was about to land???
Was he the guy she was with late on the Sunday evening at the PoW? If so, he may well have known about the missing items and possibly that SL was going to pick them up Monday lunchtime. Had he that knowledge that meant could have met SL en route?
SL was down to attend a party on the Tuesday night again at the rich man's Mayfair pad.
The rich man was reported to have left the UK, for the Bahamas not long after this incident.
One wonders in to the level of police interest (if any) in to this guy?
I've often wondered is there a huge missing piece of this puzzle that the gen public aren't aware of, that that would shed a whole new light on what we do know of that Monday?
I've read too that he had a business premises in Putney (in '86) and is now back in the UK, and (oddly) still an aquaintance of AL. Though can't confirm those things ....
Anyone any more info on that un-named person of interest?
https://content.assets.pressassociation.io/2018/10/30100017/a718a2f0-45f6-4f4d-9cbe-7b3bf1a5b33e.jpg
What I will say is that we need a motive, I’d say that AL has more motive than Bahamas man.
WestLondoner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,173
- Reaction score
- 2,792
I know this is bad taste but rich bloke from Mayfair and £3,000 - was SJL in any sense on the game?
This has been suggested before, obviously the police didn’t mention it (DL would not have allowed it).I know this is bad taste but rich bloke from Mayfair and £3,000 - was SJL in any sense on the game?
£3k is a lot of money and back then even more so, I think if the £3k is for real it has to be related to something more.
Crusader21
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2021
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 892
I know this is bad taste but rich bloke from Mayfair and £3,000 - was SJL in any sense on the game?
The Stephens book, although 'not allowed' to / didn't say that this was case, it did elude to SL seemingly 'very good with her money'. In that she appeared to live a lifestyle beyond what her salary afforded her too.
And if this was the case, it might explain the reported number of boyfriends / evidently having a number of men on the go at same time. Were they in fact paying 'clients'?
Such a scenario may provide more of a motive for SL to be removed / silenced / blackmail etc.
Operating as 'Belle de Jour' would also require a lifestyle with high levels of secrecy and be very hard for anyone to attempt unravel down the line.
What do others think?
Apologies for being blunt, but was SLs (sexual) lifestyle perhaps more akin to that of a prostitute, than a 'modern' 80s single girl living live in the fast lane? And is this what irks AL today?
WestLondoner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,173
- Reaction score
- 2,792
@ Crusader21
I read the Stephens book when it came out i.e. about 30 years ago. I have a feeling I binned it when the stuff about JC emerged out because it then seemed that the case had been solved, and all the trees the book barked up had been the wrong ones.
I do recall the remark about her being very good with money. If anything of the kind were true, it would be a huge consideration in understanding what happened. For all we know, the personal errand wasn't the diary, it was a lunchtime by-the-hour assignation.
@ Pinkizzy - I don't recall that specific episode, but I do recall that she and someone that she had met - I think on the ship - agreed to stay in touch for purposes of sex; as what would today be called FWBs. This information can only have come either from him, or from one of her old diaries, to which AS was given access. I'd be quite surprised if this were in her diaries, as these must have been returned to her family and you'd think they'd have read them before handing them to a journalist, so the inference is he traced and spoke to some exes.
I read the Stephens book when it came out i.e. about 30 years ago. I have a feeling I binned it when the stuff about JC emerged out because it then seemed that the case had been solved, and all the trees the book barked up had been the wrong ones.
I do recall the remark about her being very good with money. If anything of the kind were true, it would be a huge consideration in understanding what happened. For all we know, the personal errand wasn't the diary, it was a lunchtime by-the-hour assignation.
@ Pinkizzy - I don't recall that specific episode, but I do recall that she and someone that she had met - I think on the ship - agreed to stay in touch for purposes of sex; as what would today be called FWBs. This information can only have come either from him, or from one of her old diaries, to which AS was given access. I'd be quite surprised if this were in her diaries, as these must have been returned to her family and you'd think they'd have read them before handing them to a journalist, so the inference is he traced and spoke to some exes.
Crusader21
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2021
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 892
One of her 'shipmates' from QE2 days also regularly met up with her just for sex.
Is Stephens virtually telling us what she did, without actually able to label it?
Remember the Stephens book was originally comisioned by the Lamplugh family who quickly then maligned the piece because of the seedy details.
This caused much pain to the anthor, a top respected journalist who was only reporting who he uncovered. He was just doing his job, well....
Is Stephens virtually telling us what she did, without actually able to label it?
Remember the Stephens book was originally comisioned by the Lamplugh family who quickly then maligned the piece because of the seedy details.
This caused much pain to the anthor, a top respected journalist who was only reporting who he uncovered. He was just doing his job, well....
Crusader21
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2021
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 892
@WestLondoner that was exactly same for me re the Stephens book.
I read it a few times late 80s as a library book. And yes same as you when Lady killer came out, in my eyes, the Stephens book was out of date!
I was able to get a reasonably priced one on ebay about a year ago. As Terry said, it's invaluable (prob, hence the price tag these days)
I read it a few times late 80s as a library book. And yes same as you when Lady killer came out, in my eyes, the Stephens book was out of date!
I was able to get a reasonably priced one on ebay about a year ago. As Terry said, it's invaluable (prob, hence the price tag these days)
Crusader21
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2021
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 892
@WestLondoner for all we know, the personal errand wasn't the diary, it was a lunchtime by-the-hour assignation.
Interesting thought. Begs the question could such a lunchtime liaison have led to SL's death through a 'sex act gone wrong'?
If you were the male co- participant in such an accident, you'd be hardly likely to inform the authorities....
Interesting thought. Begs the question could such a lunchtime liaison have led to SL's death through a 'sex act gone wrong'?
If you were the male co- participant in such an accident, you'd be hardly likely to inform the authorities....
Crusader21
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2021
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 892
With a possible sexual aspect to the SL mystery...
Isn't it interesting that SLs friend for many years, described in Stephens book as her closest friend and confidant, herself went on to become a leading UK media expert celeb and authority on many aspects of sex!?
Books, TV appearances readily giving us her expertise, on a topic most of us would know just the basics!
A coincidence or matter of course?
Isn't it interesting that SLs friend for many years, described in Stephens book as her closest friend and confidant, herself went on to become a leading UK media expert celeb and authority on many aspects of sex!?
Books, TV appearances readily giving us her expertise, on a topic most of us would know just the basics!
A coincidence or matter of course?
Well DW my favourite criminologist said to me he doesn’t believe in coincidences when it comes to crime. And while I didn’t like the last TV doc he did I still rate him as one of the best.With a possible sexual aspect to the SL mystery...
Isn't it interesting that SLs friend for many years, described in Stephens book as her closest friend and confidant, herself went on to become a leading UK media expert celeb and authority on many aspects of sex!?
Books, TV appearances readily giving us her expertise, on a topic most of us would know just the basics!
A coincidence or matter of course?
There are an awful lot of coincidences in this case, far to many to make it easy to work out.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
DNASolves
Online statistics
- Members online
- 138
- Guests online
- 4,160
- Total visitors
- 4,298
Totals may include hidden visitors.