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

[FOXINBOX]

OK, this is my bad, but I've been barking up the wrong pub...and we now have a FOX FIT!...It is possible to link the pub [Am I allowed to name it?] to my Location #3 simply by the railway. If a person, say a Mr Herring, maybe on the pub staff, was to abduct Suzy and keep her captive until after dark, [It was midsummer, so quite late] she could be walked along the side of the tracks to this viaduct - 500 metres away. The noise of the trains going past would be cover enough. It must be one of the busiest lines in the country. The viaduct is clearly visible on satellite view.

 

[FOXINBOX]

One problem with the landlord theory. If he was involved in the crime, why not just destroy the items, and say Suzie had collected them. Who'd know?

 

[Pinkizzy]

Dbm

 

[Pinkizzy]

Have you noticed the bollards (near Kenyon Rd) on Stevenage Rd? The person who dumped the white Fiesta probably knew about the Sturgis house for sale at 119/121 but probably didn't know about the bollards and had to turn around and park by the garage (right hand side of road)

 

[FOXINBOX]

Have you noticed the bollards (near Kenyon Rd) on Stevenage Rd? The person who dumped the white Fiesta probably knew about the Sturgis house for sale at 119/121 but probably didn't know about the bollards and had to turn around and park by the garage (right hand side of road)

I think they're in place to stop Fulham FC supporters parking all the way up the road. Not sure how long they've been there.

 

[FOXINBOX]

I think they're in place to stop Fulham FC supporters parking all the way up the road. Not sure how long they've been there.

Or more likely, to stop Fulham FC fans from using Stevenage Road as a Rat Run.

 

[Terryb808]

Search the web for David Videsette’s interview (it’s a podcast, maybe on Casefile). His book is out on the 5th Aug Finding Suzy. This is not a plug for his book, in the podcast he gives clues to what he spent over 3 years working on and who he thinks was Suzy’s abductor.
No names obviously, but enough clues as to who he thinks are key witnesses and those he dismisses.

 

[Terryb808]

Points of Interest

Monday 28th July 1986

1. Mr Kipper Appointment
   1. This was a ruse to get out of the office and complete a personal errand.
   2. Only one set of keys to 37 Shorrolds Road and they remained in the Sturgis office.
   3. Police used this single set of keys to enter and search 37 Shorrolds Road after Suzy disappeared.
2. Why Mr Kipper
   1. Suzy and the Putney set liked to use nicknames.
   2. An old boyfriend lived in Shorrolds Road.
   3. His surname was Haddock, Suzy would have thought Mr Kipper,very appropriate.
3. Personal Errand
   1. Lost cheque book, diary & postcard, this is the main point of focus for most, but is it correct?
   2. If the items were lost on Friday the 25th July, why not try and locate them on Saturday or Sunday?
   3. No mention of lost items over the weekend to friends or family.
   4. On Monday the lost items seem to be the point of focus, why no before?
   5. Did Suzy loose them on Friday or maybe on Sunday.
   6. Did Suzy tell her office colleagues she was popping out to collect her things?
   7. Maybe she intended to collect them and a second errand.
4. Monday Suzy in a particularly good mood
   1. Why was this?
   2. Large amount of money expected, was she being paid this on Monday?
   3. What was this money for, how did she earn it?

Some thoughts about where Suzy may have gone and why, one sighting (if actually correct) is that from BW who said she saw Suzy with a male passenger at approximately 2.45pm travelling towards Hammersmith. If this is correct it (in my opinion) brings JC into the frame, it’s in the direction of where he may have had temporary accommodation and also the sighting on Thursday of a Mr Kipper dropping a large bag / suitcase in the Brent river at Gallows Bridge.

My view is that while this is possible, I don’t think JC had anything to do with Suzy’s disappearance, he was supposedly at home with his mother unpacking his things a 5.00pm on Monday 28th July. While this can’t be proved and some would say “his mother would say this wouldn’t she” what hard evidence do we have that JC actually knew Suzy, not much.

Key question here is, was Suzy actually going to collect her things or collect the money she’d been promised?

 

[FOXINBOX]

Search the web for David Videsette’s interview (it’s a podcast, maybe on Casefile). His book is out on the 5th Aug Finding Suzy. This is not a plug for his book, in the podcast he gives clues to what he spent over 3 years working on and who he thinks was Suzy’s abductor.
No names obviously, but enough clues as to who he thinks are key witnesses and those he dismisses.

I'm sorry I seem a bit lukewarm about Videcette's book. Of course, I'd like to see The Kipper caught, but more than anything, I want Suzy found.

This is why I'm a bit wary.
Firstly, if there are reports in a book that disrupt an ongoing investigation, publication has legal implications.
Secondlyly, if a suspect is named in a book, then they are probably already incarcerated for a similar crime i.e Call Cannan a murderer and you're OK, because he's been convicted on that charge. Or the suspect's dead, so they can't sue you. Either ways that's a stumbling block to recovering Suzy.

But supposing this is an exception and Videcette helps them catch a guy, it still may not find Suzy. Killers are notoriously close-mouthed about the fate of their victims, because human remains may contain evidence which will impede further appeals, and because it is their last vestige of control and it gives them the ability to continue to inflict pain on the victim's family and friends.

I want most to see Suzy brought home, and I just doubt this book will do that.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Suzy made a note of the Mr Kipper appointment on the Saturday, didn't she? I guess she was collecting the bonus at 12.45 and wrote Shorrolds Rd to cover her tracks

 

[Terryb808]

I'm sorry I seem a bit lukewarm about Videcette's book. Of course, I'd like to see The Kipper caught, but more than anything, I want Suzy found.

This is why I'm a bit wary.
Firstly, if there are reports in a book that disrupt an ongoing investigation, publication has legal implications.
Secondlyly, if a suspect is named in a book, then they are probably already incarcerated for a similar crime i.e Call Cannan a murderer and you're OK, because he's been convicted on that charge. Or the suspect's dead, so they can't sue you. Either ways that's a stumbling block to recovering Suzy.

But supposing this is an exception and Videcette helps them catch a guy, it still may not find Suzy. Killers are notoriously close-mouthed about the fate of their victims, because human remains may contain evidence which will impede further appeals, and because it is their last vestige of control and it gives them the ability to continue to inflict pain on the victim's family and friends.

I want most to see Suzy brought home, and I just doubt this book will do that.

I couldn’t agree more, the hurt this has caused the Lamplugh family is unbelievable, as you get older and reach retirement age (as Richard has) you tend to think about the loss even more than you did at the time.
What is needed is for the Met to walk the walk and leave no stone unturned, I think this is what they said recently in the media. Even if they feel DV is way off base with his theory, it’s a stone that should be turned over to see what’s underneath.
The lack of enthusiasm within the Met to do this is what is holding up progress, just my opinion.

 

[Crusader21]

One problem with the landlord theory. If he was involved in the crime, why not just destroy the items, and say Suzie had collected them. Who'd know?

So we know that the landlord contacted Suzy's bank, and that Suzy herself was then in contact with him on the Monday morning.

If the landlord destroyed the items and said Suzy collected them he'd surely he'd have a lot more explaining to do.

Rewind to day two, press starting to report estate agent is missing after a house viewing with mysterious client.

Your on a pigs back, surely better to go along with that. Yes Suzy was coming here for her items, she made arrangements to call at 6pm. Obviously after she went missing through this house viewing she didn't turn up, so here are her belongings....

Perfect, and unlikely to be troubled too much by police again...

 

[FOXINBOX]

The more lies are spoken, the more spin from every commentator in the last 35 years, the more difficult it is to keep track. How can we be sure of any of this? A lot of stuff isn't on verifiable record, let alone whether that was the truth in the first place.

 

[Crusader21]

I couldn’t agree more, the hurt this has caused the Lamplugh family is unbelievable, as you get older and reach retirement age (as Richard has) you tend to think about the loss even more than you did at the time.
What is needed is for the Met to walk the walk and leave no stone unturned, I think this is what they said recently in the media. Even if they feel DV is way off base with his theory, it’s a stone that should be turned over to see what’s underneath.
The lack of enthusiasm within the Met to do this is what is holding up progress, just my opinion.

According to reports, David Videcette submitted a file to the Met 2 years ago and nothing has happened.

We've now his book coming out.

If Videcette's research is on the right lines, it is very understandable how the Met were lead down the wrong path from day 1.

In a nutshell, they've named a suspect, with no real concrete evidence. Result being no conviction, justice or recovering of Suzy's remains.

You do indeed feel for Suzy Lamplugh's family. Again if Videcette's research is correct, will the Met now swallow its pride, admit the investigation was flawed and persue new lines of enquires based on Videcette's findings?

I think they owe it to the Lamplugh family to do just that....

 

[FOXINBOX]

Crusader, could you fill in the biography of Videcette for me? I can only find the very inadequate descriptions from the dust jackets of his crime fiction novels. Is it possible, for instance, to have the details of his rank in Counter-Terrorism when he left a decade ago?

 

[Crusader21]

David Videcette

I'm afraid I can't add anything to what's readily available online. Very nature of area of Videcette's police work, probably prohibits bigger online profile.

Re Suzy Lamplugh, Videcette claims 5-year, self-funded investigation, 100 plus witnesses tracked down and questioned.

Big claims in saying he knows what happened when she exited Sturgis, who was responsible for her murder and where her remains are now.

Very understandly, people have every right to be sceptical of such big claims. Time will tell.

 

[FOXINBOX]

Looked up the jolly old phone books for fishy customers. 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
1983 & 4 the very last dates available, there are no numbers for surname Haddock in either Fulham or Putney. None in Shorrolds Road. There is however a Herring in Putney

 

[FOXINBOX]

David Videcette

I'm afraid I can't add anything to what's readily available online. Very nature of area of Videcette's police work, probably prohibits bigger online profile.

Re Suzy Lamplugh, Videcette claims 5-year, self-funded investigation, 100 plus witnesses tracked down and questioned.

Big claims in saying he knows what happened when she exited Sturgis, who was responsible for her murder and where her remains are now.

Very understandly, people have every right to be sceptical of such big claims. Time will tell.

Thank you, much appreciated. The self-funded investigation + 100 witnesses sounds respectable, 20 a year in your spare time...that's OK too. As you say we shall see, although I suspect he will reveal an inaccessible place tor her remains, otherwise it will become a morbid tourist attraction [Yes, I am a cynical old Fox...]

 

[Pinkizzy]

Looked up the jolly old phone books for fishy customers. 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
1983 & 4 the very last dates available, there are no numbers for surname Haddock in either Fulham or Putney. None in Shorrolds Road. There is however a Herring in Putney

Do you know when the landlord started working at the pub?

 

[FOXINBOX]

Do you know when the landlord started working at the pub?

No, the phone number is only listed under the name of the pub.