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

[Crusader21]

In one of the Lolly True Crime podcasts on SL. There was mention of a 'duplicate car' being responsible for the BW sighting?!

Anyone know what they were getting at with this?

 

[Crusader21]

Say two people did leave the SL's car in Stevenage Rd.

As the passenger exited, the driver could have locked the passnger door / pushed button down. Then could the front seat may have been pushed back slightly to allow for leaning over to wipe down passenger side of the car and also cleaning the driver's side before then closing the driver's side door?

 

[WiseOwl]

Establishing whether anyone else had used her car that morning could indeed explain the seat position. I've just reread DV's interview with 'Clive Vole', whom he describes as a short, stout man. If he had become stout since 1986, as most people do, then it doesn't sound like he'd have needed to move the car's seat at all. Of course, this could be misdirection by DV to avoid libelling 'Clive' - for all we know he's 6'2" and weighs nine stone.

CV also suggests that he was on his own at the pub, which was open. It's hard to know whether these are inconsistencies because he can't get his story straight, or because it's hard to remember what happened 35 years ago.

I'm now intrigued by the BW sighting, since if she didn't see SJL's face, how did she know it was her car? Even seeing the number plate wouldn't help, because how many other people's car number plate does anyone remember? A lot of people don't even know their own. Does this ID rest on the hat on the parcel shelf? If so, one tends to doubt it a bit because this could be a detail she picked up from the description of the car when found and subconsciously edited into her recollection.

As Terryb808 points out, introducing a whole new jewellery subplot makes the whole matter far more complex as well as highly speculative. There's no evidence, there's nothing to link it to anywhere she's thought to have gone and there's no basis to think those who did it would commit murder. Giving statements to the police would simply attract attention. The unemployed barman's statement rehearses the public domain of her movements so closely that it sounds made-up to me. DV was unable to trace that guy.

To be fair to BW in the Crimewatch show she did say she wasn't sure if it was Suzy's car, just one that looked like it. I'm pretty sure she didn't give the car's number plate either. She also said she was sure it was Suzy, but also added that Suzy was looking away as if speaking to the passenger beside her.

I think BW is being perfectly honest in what she saw that day, I don't see anything suspicious in what she had to say or her actions at all.

I don't understand why DV didn't ask CV if the pub was open that day and how long was he on his own for. If the pub did open that afternoon then surely CV would have had some help, especially as it was his first day in charge.

Establishing whether the pub was open or closed, and if CV was on his own or not are crucial to DV's theory of something happening to Suzy at the pub that day. If CV was alone and the pub was closed then that would undoubtedly support his theory. However, if the pub was open that afternoon and there were staff and customers around then that makes DV's theory a lot less likely.

 

[Mads15]

As has been stated before and it does indeed appear, that SL created a fake lunchtime diary entry in order to retrieve her items from the PoW pub.

OK she heads to Putney, but does anyone believe SL may have walked in on something she wasn't meant too? Simply wrong place at wrong time. Disturbed or saw something of an illegal nature, that sealed her fate?

Organised crime perhaps? In that same Crimewatch (Oct 86) there's a diamond heist which took place a few days after SL went missing, for example.

Such an intrusion into a meeting where she recognised a participant maybe, may explain her simply disappearing into 'thin air'.

Does Clive Vole's ramblings of 'Hold her there in case she does a runner' also fit in with such a scenario?

Interesting that the Shorrolds Rd 'witness' who supplied the police with the perfect 'at 1pm Suzy met Mr Kipper who had a ribboned champagne bottle' narrative, ND, also worked in the 'jewellery trade' ...

A diamond heist? Do we know if they ever caught anyone for it? I’m assuming the police later investigated David Kiper (think that was his name) the diamond dealer from Belgium who they tracked down (and was a potential suspect), as he owned a left hand drive BMW that was found abandoned in North London, several months after SL’s disappearance.

 

[Konstantin]

A diamond heist? Do we know if they ever caught anyone for it? I’m assuming the police later investigated David Kiper (think that was his name) the diamond dealer from Belgium who they tracked down (and was a potential suspect), as he owned a left hand drive BMW that was found abandoned in North London, several months after SL’s disappearance.

Yes he was investigated and cleared. I don't think SJL's disppearance is because she stumbled on a diamond heist by a man who was also coincidentally interested in viewing a suburban property. I think its pretty obvious that Mr Kipper does not exist.

As I explained above in another comment it doesn't make logical sense that JC would have gotten SJL to phone the pub to explain her absence (given that Clive Vole claims she made her appointment to go there at 1800), if JC wanted her to call someone to explain her absence she would have called Sturgis, however if Mr Kipper does not exist then JC is not involved (and that is the only flimsy reason why he was really suggested).

There probably was a lot more going on in SJL's life than she let on. But it doesn't mean that is connected to what happened to her. Following the pub lead makes the most sense as it is a concrete place that she was anxious to go to. She could not have gone at 1800 as she had a bona fide appointment elsewhere. I don't think that, given the Sturgis big boss was around on the day she went missing and could have easily popped back into the offices, that SJL intended to be gone for hours that lunch time. The evidence we do have suggests she popped out on a fairly fast errand, a lunchtime-sized errand, she didn't take her bag, just her purse.

We don't know why Clive was so upset over DV talking to his ex, they could have had a really bad breakup or maybe SJL did pop by the pub that lunchtime (although if she came and went, then why were her belongings still there?)

Given her belongings were never collected from the pub, either SJL came and never left alive or didn't attend there at all.

The passenger door being locked suggests that only one person was driving the car in its final journey. Which fits with SJL driving it somewhere--only she was in the car--and then someone else taller or bigger than her driving it to its destination. (Or the seat could have been pushed back for another reason once it stopped, if a smaller person, not SJL, drove it). It suggests she was not carjacked. And the sighting of her car was either the wrong day or the wrong time, witness testimony is notoriously bad/ inaccurate. Also, I believe the car key had a Sturgis key fob so whoever drove it would have known that SJL worked there, also she could have mentioned it to them, or they could have known that for other reasons -- e.g. if it was Clive Vole, SJL talked to him and his wife on the pub and might have mentioned that she was working at Sturgis and could pop over at a certain time to get the stuff. Or it could have been in her missing diary. Or used as info to verify her ID when she called the pub--who had called her bank--to ask about coming to pick up her stuff. So the person who abandoned the car could have left it near a Sturgis sign to make it look like it was parked for a viewing, or it could be coincidence since loads of Sturgis signs were in the area.

THere were workmen in the road and it was broad daylight so a forced kidnapping in front of witnesses, plus anyone looking out of their window at the time, would be a very foolish move.

 

[WiseOwl]

I have just read DV's interview with the Daily Mail dated 29 July 2019. A couple of things stand out, firstly this:

Mr Videcette told MailOnline today: 'I believe that I know who killed Suzy Lamplugh.

'I've named that person to the police. He is alive well and at large, and has remained at large for the last 30 years.

'Who knows what he's been doing in that time.'

So he believes CV has killed Suzy, no accidental death then. And what does he mean by 'who knows what he has been doing in that time', is he inferring that CV is some kind of serial killer? Where is his evidence for this statement? All he has is the fact that Suzy Lamplugh's chequebook and diary were found at the PoW pub, no evidence at all she ever went to retrieve these items and yet from this he's convinced himself CV has murdered Suzy and maybe gone on to commit more crimes.

OR does he know a lot more about CV than he's letting on in the book?

Then there's this:

He added: 'Moreover, the police have missed or ignored the anomalies in the timelines leading up to Suzy’s disappearance and in the period afterwards. Analysing these timelines and understanding them in detail has been crucial in cracking the mystery of how and why Suzy went missing.'

We know about the period afterwards but can anyone elaborate on what the anomalies leading up to Suzy's disappearance are that he's talking about?

Full interview:

Retired detective says he knows who killed Suzy Lamplugh | Daily Mail Online

 

[Terryb808]

Establishing whether anyone else had used her car that morning could indeed explain the seat position. I've just reread DV's interview with 'Clive Vole', whom he describes as a short, stout man. If he had become stout since 1986, as most people do, then it doesn't sound like he'd have needed to move the car's seat at all. Of course, this could be misdirection by DV to avoid libelling 'Clive' - for all we know he's 6'2" and weighs nine stone.

CV also suggests that he was on his own at the pub, which was open. It's hard to know whether these are inconsistencies because he can't get his story straight, or because it's hard to remember what happened 35 years ago.

I'm now intrigued by the BW sighting, since if she didn't see SJL's face, how did she know it was her car? Even seeing the number plate wouldn't help, because how many other people's car number plate does anyone remember? A lot of people don't even know their own. Does this ID rest on the hat on the parcel shelf? If so, one tends to doubt it a bit because this could be a detail she picked up from the description of the car when found and subconsciously edited into her recollection.

As Terryb808 points out, introducing a whole new jewellery subplot makes the whole matter far more complex as well as highly speculative. There's no evidence, there's nothing to link it to anywhere she's thought to have gone and there's no basis to think those who did it would commit murder. Giving statements to the police would simply attract attention. The unemployed barman's statement rehearses the public domain of her movements so closely that it sounds made-up to me. DV was unable to trace that guy.

I agree, BW could have added the strew hat subconsciously, its not deliberate and is a natural thing our brain does when we have missing parts of a puzzle.
Because SJL disappeared without trace we have no evidence that any of the theories are true. That goes for DV’s narrative also, to make his theory more than speculation he needs to find SJL’s remains. Then his narrative can move forward at pace, I understand (although I’ve not read this myself) that he is looking for public support to help push his theory.
I’m not cynical by nature and have been behind DV all along, however, if he believes he’s right, waiting for public support just doesn’t seem the right thing to do.

 

[WestLondoner]

I agree, BW could have added the strew hat subconsciously, its not deliberate and is a natural thing our brain does when we have missing parts of a puzzle.
Because SJL disappeared without trace we have no evidence that any of the theories are true. That goes for DV’s narrative also, to make his theory more than speculation he needs to find SJL’s remains. Then his narrative can move forward at pace, I understand (although I’ve not read this myself) that he is looking for public support to help push his theory.
I’m not cynical by nature and have been behind DV all along, however, if he believes he’s right, waiting for public support just doesn’t seem the right thing to do.

Per his book, he's thinking that - funds permitting - one could hire one of the firms the police themselves use, to conduct a forensic search of the underfloor space he has identified. As soon as they find a body, I guess they call the plod.

 

[WestLondoner]

@WiseOwl

can anyone elaborate on what the anomalies leading up to Suzy's disappearance are that he's talking about?

I think he means the mysterious last weekend.

AG has been away on holiday for a week and returns on Wednesday or Thursday. He and SJL meet up on Friday evening, either at the PoW (as he said at the time, though he now vehemently denies ever having been there) or at Mossop's a few doors away. Her cheque book and diary were found at this pub so this could be when she lost them, although AG denies they were there.

SJL went to work on Saturday morning. She didn't mention losing her diary to anybody. The 'Mr Kipper' appointment could have appeared in her diary on this day.

AG is not at the party on Saturday, where she is photographed sitting on a new man's knee.

On Sunday she goes windsurfing with cronies; he is there, but she leaves separately. That evening she did not see AG but spoke to him on the phone. He does not recall who called whom. She went to her parents' house.

On Sunday night CV found her diary and chequebook outside the pub, near a couple of outdoor tables. In 1986, there was a payphone here. Conceivably the call with AG was made from here.

On Monday she goes to work. Her bank calls and says her stuff is at the pub. She presumably calls the pub to ask about picking up. This is the other time the 'Mr Kipper' entry could have appeared. At 12.40, she disappears.

 

[WestLondoner]

So here is some pure speculation, but it fits the inferred facts.

SJL was, according to the police, "a modern young woman". Her older diaries were provided to the police. Let's suppose, just for argument's sake, that "a modern young woman" is a police euphemism for "SJL had slept with 250 to 300 men in the last five years, and 20 so far in 1986, of whom AG was just one of several she had on the go at that time".

There is a lot more of this about than one might suppose. When I was 21 I was friends with a very pretty 19-year old who had slept with 20 men already. When I lost touch with her when she was 35 she was Virgin cabin crew and "up to so many I can't remember but at least 500 by now". She did it because she could.

Look again at SJL:
https://crimegirlgang.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Suzy-Lamplugh-thetimes.jpg
She could have, too. She could have had anybody she wanted. And maybe she did.

When AG went away on holiday, she had several other strings to her bow who kept her happy in his absence. He did not, and when he gets home, presumably very keen indeed to resume relations with her, is startled when she instead arranges her weekend without him and then dumps him. He was never really her "boyfriend" boyfriend. He was someone she knew and slept with, but so were others, and she had lost interest. But she agreed they could stay friends as they were of the same clique.

On Sunday, SJL met one of her "others" at the pub. She mislaid her diary. She could not have anyone reading it because it would blow the gaff. It listed everyone she had slept with and intended to sleep with that year. She needed it back and she could not ask anyone to pick it up - eg her lodger - because what if he's nosy and reads it? What if it says "I would actually do my lodger. I do wish he'd get it together and ask"?

So she needs it back. So she has to go. What happened next? No idea.

But what do we know? We know AG and SJL had split up, but her parents didn't know. He was a nice, good-looking bloke, in a profession, with prospects. They'd have been very happy for her to have become Susanna Leegood.

He appears with them at press conferences, even though the boyfriend is usually a suspect. This happens because the boyfriend is a suspect, i.e. it's one of the other 20 boyfriends who's a suspect, not AG, who's got an alibi.

The 1988 book hinted at the promiscuity, and it offended her Wesleyan Methodist parents so much it was never elaborated on. It was probably right to suppress it. First, there's nothing wrong with it, and second, the story then changes from "attractive middle-class estate agent abducted" to "slapper done in by one of her HUNDREDS of blokes". At the point the victim-blaming kicks in, all public sympathy and interest are lost.

So nothing is said. But AG now knows she's slept with maybe dozens of men while she's been with him, and here he is, colluding in misrepresenting her as some sort of saint. Probably, for AG, the perp is one of that year's 20 or 30 men who she slept with and dumped, and who has now taken offence and retaliated violently. If you sleep with 250 men, the chances that one of them's an entitled psycho must be quite high. So go and interview them and ask them what they think happened. One of them knows because one of them made it happen.

Thus when DV interviews him 35 years later, he denies ever having been in that pub with her. She didn't lose her stuff there with him. She lost it with Mr bloody Lover Boy. Hence his snapped "You'll never find out what happened", because he can't figure out which of them it might have been and he was actually there.

The above is pure conjecture - certainly the numbers I've used - but has been hinted at these last 35 years here and there. She was exceptionally pretty and quite able to live the pretty racy love life that her diaries apparently recount. JC or anyone like him would certainly take murderous umbrage at being dumped by someone like SJL.

Hence she is intercepted by someone she knows, who isn't prepared to be dumped.

Conjecture but fits the facts, known and rumoured....

 

[Crusader21]

Virgin cabin crew, sounds more like Easy Jet!

To be serious tho, a jilted / annoyed boyfriend, would he murder her as she nipped out in the city on a busy Monday lunchtime?

Surely something along those lines would be a late night affair ....

 

[Pinkizzy]

The pub isn't a crime scene, I guess anyone could take a look at the rubble and other stuff that remains hidden.

 

[Pinkizzy]

In one of the Lolly True Crime podcasts on SL. There was mention of a 'duplicate car' being responsible for the BW sighting?!

Anyone know what they were getting at with this?

The duplicate car could be a Sturgis fiesta from another office or it was a decoy to confuse a witness

 

[Terryb808]

So here is some pure speculation, but it fits the inferred facts.

SJL was, according to the police, "a modern young woman". Her older diaries were provided to the police. Let's suppose, just for argument's sake, that "a modern young woman" is a police euphemism for "SJL had slept with 250 to 300 men in the last five years, and 20 so far in 1986, of whom AG was just one of several she had on the go at that time".

There is a lot more of this about than one might suppose. When I was 21 I was friends with a very pretty 19-year old who had slept with 20 men already. When I lost touch with her when she was 35 she was Virgin cabin crew and "up to so many I can't remember but at least 500 by now". She did it because she could.

Look again at SJL:
https://crimegirlgang.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Suzy-Lamplugh-thetimes.jpg
She could have, too. She could have had anybody she wanted. And maybe she did.

When AG went away on holiday, she had several other strings to her bow who kept her happy in his absence. He did not, and when he gets home, presumably very keen indeed to resume relations with her, is startled when she instead arranges her weekend without him and then dumps him. He was never really her "boyfriend" boyfriend. He was someone she knew and slept with, but so were others, and she had lost interest. But she agreed they could stay friends as they were of the same clique.

On Sunday, SJL met one of her "others" at the pub. She mislaid her diary. She could not have anyone reading it because it would blow the gaff. It listed everyone she had slept with and intended to sleep with that year. She needed it back and she could not ask anyone to pick it up - eg her lodger - because what if he's nosy and reads it? What if it says "I would actually do my lodger. I do wish he'd get it together and ask"?

So she needs it back. So she has to go. What happened next? No idea.

But what do we know? We know AG and SJL had split up, but her parents didn't know. He was a nice, good-looking bloke, in a profession, with prospects. They'd have been very happy for her to have become Susanna Leegood.

He appears with them at press conferences, even though the boyfriend is usually a suspect. This happens because the boyfriend is a suspect, i.e. it's one of the other 20 boyfriends who's a suspect, not AG, who's got an alibi.

The 1988 book hinted at the promiscuity, and it offended her Wesleyan Methodist parents so much it was never elaborated on. It was probably right to suppress it. First, there's nothing wrong with it, and second, the story then changes from "attractive middle-class estate agent abducted" to "slapper done in by one of her HUNDREDS of blokes". At the point the victim-blaming kicks in, all public sympathy and interest are lost.

So nothing is said. But AG now knows she's slept with maybe dozens of men while she's been with him, and here he is, colluding in misrepresenting her as some sort of saint. Probably, for AG, the perp is one of that year's 20 or 30 men who she slept with and dumped, and who has now taken offence and retaliated violently. If you sleep with 250 men, the chances that one of them's an entitled psycho must be quite high. So go and interview them and ask them what they think happened. One of them knows because one of them made it happen.

Thus when DV interviews him 35 years later, he denies ever having been in that pub with her. She didn't lose her stuff there with him. She lost it with Mr bloody Lover Boy. Hence his snapped "You'll never find out what happened", because he can't figure out which of them it might have been and he was actually there.

The above is pure conjecture - certainly the numbers I've used - but has been hinted at these last 35 years here and there. She was exceptionally pretty and quite able to live the pretty racy love life that her diaries apparently recount. JC or anyone like him would certainly take murderous umbrage at being dumped by someone like SJL.

Hence she is intercepted by someone she knows, who isn't prepared to be dumped.

Conjecture but fits the facts, known and rumoured....

Good call on keeping public sympathy, the police let the cat out of the bag with Claudia Lawrence and the press made the most of it.

I agree there’s absolutely nothing wrong in having a free spirited attitude to life, didn’t bother me back then. However, JC would be one who wouldn’t have taken rejection well. So anyone of the many that had his outlook would take revenge.

 

[WestLondoner]

Virgin cabin crew, sounds more like Easy Jet!

To be serious tho, a jilted / annoyed boyfriend, would he murder her as she nipped out in the city on a busy Monday lunchtime?

Surely something along those lines would be a late night affair ....

In the 1990s Virgin, Gulf and Emirates were renowned for hiring only good-looking women. She had worked for all three...as she saw it 500 men in 20 years is one new one a fortnight. Easily accomplished if you're cabin crew.

SJL seems to have done everything she could to move out of her parents' house as soon as she could. There was the QE2 job and the decision to buy the Putney flat. Your own space is essential if you're a party girl and your parents are Bible bashers.

The most baffling thing about this is the broad daylight nature of it, unless, unless, the man who did this knew how hard it could be to get SJL's attention. Her evenings were perhaps very busy. If he tries to set up an evening meeting he just gets blown out because she's finished with him. So he intercepts her by day having worked out what he's going to do.

I think for DV the appeal at least in part of the pub theory is that you don't kill someone in plain view. You don't even kill them out of sight then transport the body around. The ideal way is to kill and dispose of them at the same spot. SJL was either taken somewhere or persuaded to drive there and within a few hours she was certainly dead as the killer then addressed the need to get rid of the incriminating car.

The absence of evidence, even prints in the car, points to this being an experienced criminal adept at erasing traces. Unless there is even more we don't know about CV this feels like another reason to be sceptical it was him.

 

[Terryb808]

The nature of vanishing without trace IMO revolves around the narrative DV has come up with, you go into an empty pub, it’s closed, no staff or customers and don’t come out. No one noticed you go in, no one knew where you were going when you left the office, so no trace whatsoever.
Another version is the professional elimination, this is well planned and no one will ever know what happened because it’s not in the interests of those involved to let on what happened.
Lastly there’s the serial killer who has developed an MO which results in him being able to stalk his victims in plain sight and not be noticed. This is usually because his job places him in a position where he can go unnoticed.
This last person (as far as I know) would not abduct in broad daylight, JC does not fit into this last category because he’s very haphazard about his attacks and discards his victims where they are usually found.
So DV is on sound ground regarding vanishing without trace.

 

[WiseOwl]

So here is some pure speculation, but it fits the inferred facts.

SJL was, according to the police, "a modern young woman". Her older diaries were provided to the police. Let's suppose, just for argument's sake, that "a modern young woman" is a police euphemism for "SJL had slept with 250 to 300 men in the last five years, and 20 so far in 1986, of whom AG was just one of several she had on the go at that time".

There is a lot more of this about than one might suppose. When I was 21 I was friends with a very pretty 19-year old who had slept with 20 men already. When I lost touch with her when she was 35 she was Virgin cabin crew and "up to so many I can't remember but at least 500 by now". She did it because she could.

Look again at SJL:
https://crimegirlgang.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Suzy-Lamplugh-thetimes.jpg
She could have, too. She could have had anybody she wanted. And maybe she did.

When AG went away on holiday, she had several other strings to her bow who kept her happy in his absence. He did not, and when he gets home, presumably very keen indeed to resume relations with her, is startled when she instead arranges her weekend without him and then dumps him. He was never really her "boyfriend" boyfriend. He was someone she knew and slept with, but so were others, and she had lost interest. But she agreed they could stay friends as they were of the same clique.

On Sunday, SJL met one of her "others" at the pub. She mislaid her diary. She could not have anyone reading it because it would blow the gaff. It listed everyone she had slept with and intended to sleep with that year. She needed it back and she could not ask anyone to pick it up - eg her lodger - because what if he's nosy and reads it? What if it says "I would actually do my lodger. I do wish he'd get it together and ask"?

So she needs it back. So she has to go. What happened next? No idea.

But what do we know? We know AG and SJL had split up, but her parents didn't know. He was a nice, good-looking bloke, in a profession, with prospects. They'd have been very happy for her to have become Susanna Leegood.

He appears with them at press conferences, even though the boyfriend is usually a suspect. This happens because the boyfriend is a suspect, i.e. it's one of the other 20 boyfriends who's a suspect, not AG, who's got an alibi.

The 1988 book hinted at the promiscuity, and it offended her Wesleyan Methodist parents so much it was never elaborated on. It was probably right to suppress it. First, there's nothing wrong with it, and second, the story then changes from "attractive middle-class estate agent abducted" to "slapper done in by one of her HUNDREDS of blokes". At the point the victim-blaming kicks in, all public sympathy and interest are lost.

So nothing is said. But AG now knows she's slept with maybe dozens of men while she's been with him, and here he is, colluding in misrepresenting her as some sort of saint. Probably, for AG, the perp is one of that year's 20 or 30 men who she slept with and dumped, and who has now taken offence and retaliated violently. If you sleep with 250 men, the chances that one of them's an entitled psycho must be quite high. So go and interview them and ask them what they think happened. One of them knows because one of them made it happen.

Thus when DV interviews him 35 years later, he denies ever having been in that pub with her. She didn't lose her stuff there with him. She lost it with Mr bloody Lover Boy. Hence his snapped "You'll never find out what happened", because he can't figure out which of them it might have been and he was actually there.

The above is pure conjecture - certainly the numbers I've used - but has been hinted at these last 35 years here and there. She was exceptionally pretty and quite able to live the pretty racy love life that her diaries apparently recount. JC or anyone like him would certainly take murderous umbrage at being dumped by someone like SJL.

Hence she is intercepted by someone she knows, who isn't prepared to be dumped.

Conjecture but fits the facts, known and rumoured....

He comes across very defensive in DV's book, in fact virtually the first thing he says is that he had a cast-iron alibi on the day Suzy went missing - why bring that up so early in the interview?

I don't think that the weekend before Suzy disappeared went well for him. I know that he and Suzy went to a restaurant on the Friday night, and I think that's when she told him about the 'new' boyfriend. He wasn't at the party on the Saturday night, and Suzy travelled without him (there and back) to Worthing on the Sunday afternoon - ouch!

He said he spoke on the phone to Suzy on the Sunday night, and said that they had arranged to meet on Tuesday. However, why would Suzy want to meet up with him, her actions over the weekend would suggest she wasn't too keen on his company at that time.

I know this sounds unlikely, and I am even doubting it myself but is it beyond the realms of possibility that he phoned Suzy on the Sunday night and arranged to meet her on the Monday lunchtime?

If only we knew what that cast-iron alibi was!

 

[WestLondoner]

He was probably at the office.

 

[Terryb808]

He comes across very defensive in DV's book, in fact virtually the first thing he says is that he had a cast-iron alibi on the day Suzy went missing - why bring that up so early in the interview?

I don't think that the weekend before Suzy disappeared went well for him. I know that he and Suzy went to a restaurant on the Friday night, and I think that's when she told him about the 'new' boyfriend. He wasn't at the party on the Saturday night, and Suzy travelled without him (there and back) to Worthing on the Sunday afternoon - ouch!

He said he spoke on the phone to Suzy on the Sunday night, and said that they had arranged to meet on Tuesday. However, why would Suzy want to meet up with him, her actions over the weekend would suggest she wasn't too keen on his company at that time.

I know this sounds unlikely, and I am even doubting it myself but is it beyond the realms of possibility that he phoned Suzy on the Sunday night and arranged to meet her on the Monday lunchtime?

If only we knew what that cast-iron alibi was!

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.

 

[WiseOwl]

He was probably at the office.

Do we know where he worked? Or where he lived?

According to DV's book AL was questioned by the police on the Monday night at Fulham police station. MG phoned the police at 6.45 pm to inform them that Suzy was missing, so doesn't it appear rather soon for the police to pull someone in that same evening for questioning? At that point they would be just beginning to investigate what had happened to Suzy and it seems to me rather odd to be questioning someone so early in the investigation.

Has it ever been said anywhere at what point in the day that AL had heard that Suzy was missing? And who was it that told him?