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

[sian morris]

MG phoned DL and local hospitals before calling the police, didn't he?

Yes

 

[sian morris]

I didn't know that MG went to Shorrolds Road twice that day, does it state in AS's book what times these were? Did he have someone with him both times? Did he enter the property both times?

Also where did AS get his information from about MG that day? Did he actually speak to MG himself or was it from the police reports from the time Suzy went missing?

Another thing that I am curious about is what time did MG return to the office after his extended lunch in the Crocodile Tears? I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere at all?

MG was interviewed twice in DV's book but at no time does he mention going to Shorrolds Road twice, entering the property and speaking to HR amongst other things. I would of thought that he would have vivid recollections of that particular day even 30-odd years later.

1. 'By the middle of the afternoon he and his colleagues were concerned' (AS). Later on in the book, MG states it was around 3.30pm (p129). So the first time to Shorrolds Rd was after around 3.30pm, and 'with a colleague' (AS). The second time it just states 'He returned to Shorrolds Rd: still nothing (AS).' This was after he had phoned SL's flat.

I don't know if MG entered the property both times: AS just states 'found no sign of S in or out of the house' (the first time) and 'He returned to Shorrolds Rd: still nothing' (AS).

Unable to answer your questions 2 & 3. Your last paragraph: perhaps MG did mention all this information, but DV chose not to use it in his book???

As an aside, I have just noted on p128 (AS) that SL's sister confirmed the information about the 'married man' and that SL was seeing him 3 weeks before she disappeared. Also SL told JH about the 'married man' shortly before she disappeared. We still don't know who this person is.

 

[WiseOwl]

1. 'By the middle of the afternoon he and his colleagues were concerned' (AS). Later on in the book, MG states it was around 3.30pm (p129). So the first time to Shorrolds Rd was after around 3.30pm, and 'with a colleague' (AS). The second time it just states 'He returned to Shorrolds Rd: still nothing (AS).' This was after he had phoned SL's flat.

I don't know if MG entered the property both times: AS just states 'found no sign of S in or out of the house' (the first time) and 'He returned to Shorrolds Rd: still nothing' (AS).

Unable to answer your questions 2 & 3. Your last paragraph: perhaps MG did mention all this information, but DV chose not to use it in his book???

As an aside, I have just noted on p128 (AS) that SL's sister confirmed the information about the 'married man' and that SL was seeing him 3 weeks before she disappeared. Also SL told JH about the 'married man' shortly before she disappeared. We still don't know who this person is.

Thank you for replying @sian morris.

Perhaps the reason why MG went to Shorrolds Road twice is that the first time he went to look for Suzy he didn't have the keys; Then at some point when he returned to the office he found the set of keys and that's why he paid a return visit, so he could check inside the property as well?

As you say DV could have left the information out of his book. However, he considers the mystery of the keys as a strong point to support his theory of what happened to Suzy that day (as we know he believes that she didn't go to Shorrolds Road at all and that the keys were still in the office) so this information about MG going twice to the property and looking inside would have been important to him.

In fact in his book (Page 105) DV states after interviewing MG that 'we know he didn't have a spare key. He didn't go inside to look for Suzy because he says he assumed Suzy had the key. MJ from Fulham CID doesn't go to 37 Shorrolds Road that night because he assumed that MG had looked inside. Which we know he didn't.'

But according to AS's book HE DID!

 

[sian morris]

Thank you for replying @sian morris.

Perhaps the reason why MG went to Shorrolds Road twice is that the first time he went to look for Suzy he didn't have the keys; Then at some point when he returned to the office he found the set of keys and that's why he paid a return visit, so he could check inside the property as well?

As you say DV could have left the information out of his book. However, he considers the mystery of the keys as a strong point to support his theory of what happened to Suzy that day (as we know he believes that she didn't go to Shorrolds Road at all and that the keys were still in the office) so this information about MG going twice to the property and looking inside would have been important to him.

In fact in his book (Page 105) DV states after interviewing MG that 'we know he didn't have a spare key. He didn't go inside to look for Suzy because he says he assumed Suzy had the key. MJ from Fulham CID doesn't go to 37 Shorrolds Road that night because he assumed that MG had looked inside. Which we know he didn't.'

But according to AS's book HE DID!

It doesn't make sense. So DV believes that the keys for Sh Rd were still in the office. Surely MG would have checked whether the Sh Rd keys were on their hook before going to Sh Rd, even if he had assumed SL had taken them?

The fact that Fulham CID didn't check Sh Rd themselves, I find quite incredible.

So confusing, as AS states that MG remembered SL picking up the keys.

 

[WiseOwl]

It doesn't make sense. So DV believes that the keys for Sh Rd were still in the office. Surely MG would have checked whether the Sh Rd keys were on their hook before going to Sh Rd, even if he had assumed SL had taken them?

The fact that Fulham CID didn't check Sh Rd themselves, I find quite incredible.

So confusing, as AS states that MG remembered SL picking up the keys.

It would have been impossible for MG to have remembered Suzy picking up the keys because he wasn't in the office at the time she left at around 12.40 - he was lunching at the Crocodile Tears.

Again, it would be good to know the source of AS's information as regards MG.

 

[sian morris]

It would have been impossible for MG to have remembered Suzy picking up the keys because he wasn't in the office at the time she left at around 12.40 - he was lunching at the Crocodile Tears.

Again, it would be good to know the source of AS's information as regards MG.

AS's book states that MG had lunch at the Crocodile Tears, but gives no timings.

 

[WiseOwl]

AS's book states that MG had lunch at the Crocodile Tears, but gives no timings.

In DV's book (page 341) he says that MG and KP (the Sturgis firm's enforcer and the man who employed Suzy) leave the office for lunch around midday, so there is no way that MG could possibly have seen Suzy picking up the keys to Shorrolds Road.

I do wonder if AS got his information from a police report, and that it had been incorrect in saying that MG had remembered Suzy picking up the keys. Maybe it had been another staff member who was in the office at the time, more than likely NH but somehow it had got reported as being MG instead?

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

It doesn't make sense. So DV believes that the keys for Sh Rd were still in the office. Surely MG would have checked whether the Sh Rd keys were on their hook before going to Sh Rd, even if he had assumed SL had taken them?

The fact that Fulham CID didn't check Sh Rd themselves, I find quite incredible.

So confusing, as AS states that MG remembered SL picking up the keys.

There were only ONE set of keys, says DV. The problem was that latterly everyone thought there were TWO sets of keys and SL had one of them.

The property had been on the market less than TWO weeks and the man selling the property, a helicopter pilot overseas, had ONLY given Sturgis ONE set of keys. He has confirmed this, allegedly. So, there was only ever one set of keys suggests DV.

It took time to get extra sets cut and often only happened if there was great demand back then.

Sturgis apparently had a clear system of any duplicate sets of keys all being on one ring - it doesn't seem that logical but this does still happen today in some London Estate Agents.

In this case, as everyone KNEW that SL went to meet Mr Kipper it and was assumed that is where she went with keys just as she had put in her diary. No need to overthink or give more bandwidth to it people thought. If SL hadn't put Kipper in the diary this error might have been spotted earlier? As it was she was seen outside, SL, so everyone thought, the keys seemed neither here nor there. Things snowballed. The woman seen and later abducted at Shorrolds Rd was what everyone invested in.

It was interesting to see in a recent Doc that some of the original police seemed to think, I believe, it was possible that Shorrolds a ruse too, and SL never went there.

 

[WiseOwl]

There were only ONE set of keys, says DV. The problem was that latterly everyone thought there were TWO sets of keys and SL had one of them.

The property had been on the market less than TWO weeks and the man selling the property, a helicopter pilot overseas, had ONLY given Sturgis ONE set of keys. He has confirmed this, allegedly. So, there was only ever one set of keys suggests DV.

It took time to get extra sets cut and often only happened if there was great demand back then.

Sturgis apparently had a clear system of any duplicate sets of keys all being on one ring - it doesn't seem that logical but this does still happen today in some London Estate Agents.

In this case, as everyone KNEW that SL went to meet Mr Kipper it and was assumed that is where she went with keys just as she had put in her diary. No need to overthink or give more bandwidth to it people thought. If SL hadn't put Kipper in the diary this error might have been spotted earlier? As it was she was seen outside, SL, so everyone thought, the keys seemed neither here nor there. Things snowballed. The woman seen and later abducted at Shorrolds Rd was what everyone invested in.

It was interesting to see in a recent Doc that some of the original police seemed to think, I believe, it was possible that Shorrolds a ruse too, and SL never went there.

Do you know where the information came from as regards Sturgis having duplicate sets of keys on one ring?

It wasn't actually DV who said there was only one set of keys to the properties of Sturgis. In his book he speaks to Martin Sturgis, family member and a senior partner of the company at the time of Suzy's disappearance (1986).

DV asks MS 'If you were holding keys to a property for sale, how many sets would you have?'

To which MS replies 'There would be one. It would be very unusual indeed to have had two, because two sets are difficult to keep track of and sometimes keys go missing. Generally speaking one set of keys, one set would always suffice.'

DV then asks 'If there were two sets of keys, would they have been held separately or together?'

MS replies 'They'd have been held together, on the same bunch - the same key board.'

Considering his position in the company you would have to believe what MS was saying about the keys; One set, and if there was two they would be held together.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

It wasn't that there were only one set of keys for each Sturgis property, definitively.
You're right re: MS.

We do know there were only one set of keys in the first place for 37 Shorrolds Rd, apparently. They had been given by the vendor allegedly, only a week or so earlier to Sturgis. So if any duplicate set, on a ring or otherwise, this additional set of keys would have had to have been proactively cut by a member of the office. This would have had to have happened almost immediately if so and an irregular action it would seem given what was common practice at time and from what MS himself says.

In From the Files Podcast: 'Suzy didn't take the keys with her' says DV. 'They only had one set of keys'. 'Scene of crimes officer, who entered the premises the next day, used the keys to enter the property' 'the police believed that they had one set and Suzy had the other'.

 

[Terryb808]

A very interesting discussion on the keys, it is odd (but logical) to keep sets of keys together.

After all in a busy office keys could get lost, and then they’d have to change the locks as a precaution.

Logically MG went to Shorrolds without the keys, thinking SJL had them, then returned a second time and this time with the keys to look inside. This makes sense if he took a colleague with him as he didn’t know what he might find.

Don’t understand why DV doesn’t make a point of this, he must have reached this conclusion, I understand he has said subsequently that he knows who’s responsible for the whole key scenario, but will not say.

I’m assuming the police broke into SJL’s flat because NB was not available, unless the door had a mortise lock I can’t see why they needed to break down the door.
The same thing goes for Shorrolds, AS’s book cover shows Yale lock keys, so even without the keys they could have entered without damaging the front door.

What also makes sense is the Mr Kipper appointment and when this was put in SJL’s desk diary. If we believe she wanted to get out of the office that lunchtime and the DV accounts are correct, then she’d have waited until MG & co went to lunch before putting this in her desk diary.

Logically if Mr Kipper was a fabrication you’d not want to risk being questioned by the senior enforcer about him.
Just a few thoughts.

 

[WestLondoner]

Welcome to the thread Sian and your Ladyship

I think DV is right about the keys and that MG is the party who's inadvertently created the confusion over them. It can hardly be anyone else, can it? For the reasons given above and in DV's book, they'd logically all be kept together. Otherwise, if you lost track of one set, you'd have to pay to replace them all in case someone has lifted the missing set to use in a burglary.

The problems with MG's differing accounts arise I suspect from the fact that until about 6pm he was dealing with a wayward subordinate, not a missing person. So he goes to the police then goes and does something else because it's taking too long, he's got stuff to do and she's probably turned up by now anyway.

The problem is whether he ever went inside and how many visits he actually made. AS may be relying on the police file here which may itself be wrong. As Her Ladyship reminds us above, everyone just assumed this and assumed that. If he had the keys then he would surely have taken them, gone inside, and told the police as much. The police in turn would not have looked inside because he already had. When they eventually did it's because it's a possible crime scene, whereupon they're handed a set of keys which they assume to be the spares that he used the day before, as Lady Stoddart-West points out.

Someone's already told them SJL had the keys, and by the time someone works out that she didn't, a great deal of police time and resource has been wasted following supposed sightings at a place she probably never went. Feeling extremely sheepish at this point, MG doesn't correct the mistake and three months on it's repeated on Crimewatch.

The police must have been pretty relieved when JC turned up to fit into the frame. The false narrative they'd been following makes them look embarrassingly sloppy, until hey presto, here's this sex criminal who looks like the non-existent bloke in SJL's diary, who does this sort of crime and might have been in the area in the previous six months. Phew! Thank God for JC! Of course the other 25 to 30 rapists released from Wormwood Scrubs over the same six months never get a mention...

 

[rls11]

I think the nuances of language could play a role in the interpretation of MG's (or anyone else's) account of SL and the keys to number 37. If the police asked, for example, 'What did Suzi do before she left the office?', the response 'She would have taken the keys with her' is very different from 'She took the keys with her' but could have been construed as fact that SL having taken the keys...

FWIW, from everything I've read, I think there was just one set and she didn't take it with her MOO

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

I think the nuances of language could play a role in the interpretation of MG's (or anyone else's) account of SL and the keys to number 37. If the police asked, for example, 'What did Suzi do before she left the office?', the response 'She would have taken the keys with her' is very different from 'She took the keys with her' but could have been construed as fact that SL having taken the keys...

FWIW, from everything I've read, I think there was just one set and she didn't take it with her MOO

Yes, I think you're right. Nuances of language also play out in the AS book, e.g. BW's account of SL: 'there, driving north towards Hammersmith in a white ford fiesta with a straw boater on the back sill was her old friend, SL'. AS is scene setting here, this is NOT BW's direct account. BW later can be heard to say, when interviewed, it might 'conceivably' have been another white fiesta as 'they are quite common'.

 

[WiseOwl]

It wasn't that there were only one set of keys for each Sturgis property, definitively.
You're right re: MS.

We do know there were only one set of keys in the first place for 37 Shorrolds Rd, apparently. They had been given by the vendor allegedly, only a week or so earlier to Sturgis. So if any duplicate set, on a ring or otherwise, this additional set of keys would have had to have been proactively cut by a member of the office. This would have had to have happened almost immediately if so and an irregular action it would seem given what was common practice at time and from what MS himself says.

In From the Files Podcast: 'Suzy didn't take the keys with her' says DV. 'They only had one set of keys'. 'Scene of crimes officer, who entered the premises the next day, used the keys to enter the property' 'the police believed that they had one set and Suzy had the other'.

I believe that is correct, that the police were led to believe that they had a spare set of keys to let them into Shorrolds Road on the Tuesday morning, and that Suzy had the other set of keys which were missing.

Without directly saying it's him DV firmly points the finger at MG for the confusion about the keys.

MG's actions do seem a bit odd that afternoon, and we can only wonder why he didn't make clear to the police that there were only one set of keys to the property.

 

[WestLondoner]

Yes, the key thing here is that as office manager, it would have obviously been MG with whom the police dealt. They weren't going to be asking SF or NH about the keys; they were going to ask the chap in charge.

This is unfortunate because for a perfectly valid reason, MG wasn't actually there when she left. So although in charge, he had no more idea than the police did where she had gone. If this suppositious viewing at 12.45 had ever been mentioned, he'd already have known where she'd gone - which IMO says she wrote it in just before she left. All he could do was what the police would have done, which was to look in her desk diary to find out where she was meant to be. So whatever he told them about how she came to leave the office might have contained a fair bit of supposition and inference mistaken for fact as rls11 points out.

So, logically, at some point MG wonders where she is, looks in her diary, and off he goes to 37SR, not checking for keys because obviously she's got them because viewing. I am far from sure what we can say then happened, because there are so many conflicts. If he went there more than once and took SF with him, this admits the possibility that all the supposed sightings of "Mr Kipper" and SJL were in fact sightings of MG and SF. If the only visit MG and SF made was one where they spoke to HR, then this can't be so.

One of the frustrations here is, frankly, the poor quality of the witness statements. In 1986 the London economy was booming, to the point where if you lived in London and you didn't have a job, it was because you didn't want one. Even JC, a convicted rapist out on day release, was able to get a job among normal people who had no idea what he had done. Despite this, the eyewitness are unemployed HR, unemployed barman Noel I-forget-his-name, and others who for whatever reason were at home and not working. For me, this raises the strong possibility that these witnesses were, to be blunt, not the sharpest tools in the shed. If so, it may explain both the inaccuracy of their initial statements (WJ's sighting can't be reconciled to the BT workers') and the implausible embellishments introduced later. HR, for example, seems to have seen whatever the person he was speaking to found it helpful for him to have seen.

I guess if, on the basis of the keys, one is satisfied she never went to 37SR, then what HR and others did or didn't see is simply irrelevant. The more reliable piece of reasoning says they saw nothing of importance. In that case, DV's hypothesis about where she did actually go starts to look more plausible - although he has said nothing in his book about who might have harmed her.

 

[WiseOwl]

A very interesting discussion on the keys, it is odd (but logical) to keep sets of keys together.

After all in a busy office keys could get lost, and then they’d have to change the locks as a precaution.

Logically MG went to Shorrolds without the keys, thinking SJL had them, then returned a second time and this time with the keys to look inside. This makes sense if he took a colleague with him as he didn’t know what he might find.

Don’t understand why DV doesn’t make a point of this, he must have reached this conclusion, I understand he has said subsequently that he knows who’s responsible for the whole key scenario, but will not say.

I’m assuming the police broke into SJL’s flat because NB was not available, unless the door had a mortise lock I can’t see why they needed to break down the door.
The same thing goes for Shorrolds, AS’s book cover shows Yale lock keys, so even without the keys they could have entered without damaging the front door.

What also makes sense is the Mr Kipper appointment and when this was put in SJL’s desk diary. If we believe she wanted to get out of the office that lunchtime and the DV accounts are correct, then she’d have waited until MG & co went to lunch before putting this in her desk diary.

Logically if Mr Kipper was a fabrication you’d not want to risk being questioned by the senior enforcer about him.
Just a few thoughts.

Yes, I too think that MG went to Shorrolds Road at first without the keys (with another member of staff), hence the knocking of the door and the peering through the window scenario in the Crimewatch reconstruction. I wonder if he found the set of keys in the office after all the other staff had gone home, prompting him to make a second visit on his own sometime after 5.00?

Maybe this would explain why he didn't contact the police until 6.45?

I am also surprised that DV made no mention of MG's double visit to Shorrolds Road or that he spoke to HR, I am fairly certain he would of known about this. Perhaps after questioning MG about the keys he decided not to press him any further on his actions that afternoon.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

I believe that is correct, that the police were led to believe that they had a spare set of keys to let them into Shorrolds Road on the Tuesday morning, and that Suzy had the other set of keys which were missing.

Without directly saying it's him DV firmly points the finger at MG for the confusion about the keys.

MG's actions do seem a bit odd that afternoon, and we can only wonder why he didn't make clear to the police that there were only one set of keys to the property.

I think poss because it was felt that was entirely irrelevant. Fast.

I think the clear diary apt seemed to suggest she'd gone to Shorrolds and things just snowballed, quickly, especially with HR's sighting and ALL the other sightings up to a week afterwards: JI, (very credible), ND (unemployed bar cellar man), ND (unemployed jeweller, who said the couple he saw looked very high net worth, too smart for area etc), he would know high net worth people first hand given his job experience (possibly). Then we have the two men seen by the pensioner in the saloon car, one with a moustache.

Keys or no keys, not relevant, it is clear she went, as all saw it at the time.

 

[Konstantin]

All he could do was what the police would have done, which was to look in her desk diary to find out where she was meant to be. So whatever he told them about how she came to leave the office might have contained a fair bit of supposition and inference mistaken for fact as rls11 points out.

yes the AS book says that they looked in her diary and saw the appointment.
This does mean that they had not been verbally informed of it before MG left for his crocodile tears lunch, although we don't know whether SJL was in the habit of informing people if she had made lunchtime appointments to show homes. What we also know is that it was usual practice at the office to make a card for clients so that all clients were recorded and there was nothing at all for Mr Kipper so that suggests the appointment was made shortly before it was to occur, OR that SJL made it up.

If I were SJL and I made teh appointment up I would take the keys and particulars to lend credibility to my lie, otherwise she risked being found out. If it was important enough that she lie to get out of the office that lunchtime why not grab the keys and make it look plausible. And if it were a lie why did she pick that house? Because it was new and she knew no one else was going to show it that lunch or just after so she could get away with it?

If he went there more than once and took SF with him, this admits the possibility that all the supposed sightings of "Mr Kipper" and SJL were in fact sightings of MG and SF. If the only visit MG and SF made was one where they spoke to HR, then this can't be so.

Yes it seems that HR spoke to MG and who ever went with him to the house. HR spoke to MG and then later spoke to him again to add to his story the line about the bundling of the woman who he didnt remember clearly into a car. So whoever HR says he saw he definitely didnt confuse them with MG and AN Other.

This idea that he mixed them up was a good one but it doesn't fit with what happened as HR definitely spoke to MG more than once. Whether he called him the second time or MG went again to the house is unclear. AS doesn't say MG went back there.

We are assuming that all these witnesses, in particular MG, are good witnesses in the sense of remembering things and recalling them clearly and also acting in a logical way. MG seems not to have done so in the sense that he wasn't clear about the keys and whether he went into the house or not, and whether he led HR as a witness or not (why did HR suddenly come up with such an alarming story? am I the only one who finds that odd? A grown adult doesn't come back to her office for a few hours, her colleagues are trying to find her. Your first thought might be, she's messing around, got a new job and doesn't care about this, felt sick and went home and we missed a call, had a bit of a car accident and is stuck dealing with that, maybe got injured. It wouldn't be "she was abducted". And yet HR goes from yeah I saw this bloke who I recall in detail and some woman I can't really remember, to the woman was bundled into a car, within a couple of hours.

I would be really interested to know what conversations happened between MG and HR and when. How did he come to talk to MG? Was MG shouting for SJL because he could not get into the property and HR came out? (If the house next door is for sale and an estate agent popped round to see if his colleague was there, used the key to open the door, had a look inside and left, that would not prompt any attention from a neighbour. But if MG had no key, and was banging on the door shouting for SJL, knocking or peering through windows, a neighbour might come out to see what's going on.

Was HR someone who often embellished stories? There are some people who do this.

Was he led by MG? How alarmed did MG seem? If he checked the house once why woudl he go back there? There was no sign of SJL the first time. Did he ask HR to keep an eye out and called him from the office asking did you see her at the house since we were last there and HR now remembered seeing the car bundling?

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

The police flew HR to Belgium to where he said that R the diamond dealer who sometimes went by mother’s maiden name - almost ‘Kipper - actually bore a v close resemblance to man he saw at 37 Shorrolds. (The man who owned the stolen BMW identified in St John’s Wood many months later)