UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #3

[Cherwell]

He did see MG. MG and another colleague must have spoken to him in person when they went to 37SR looking for SJL because this is when HR said he had seen the male he described with a female outside the property.

MG went back to 37SR later that day before going to the police to report the disappearance. AS notes that when he did report the disappearance, HR was "now saying" that he recalled the woman being bundled into a car or vehicle by the male, which is why the police took it so seriously. As HR was "now saying" something this suggests MG spoke to him twice and while we don't know how it happened, the most likely is when he went back to SR a second time.

The idea that HR recalled MG when later asked about the male he saw outside the property doesn't really make much sense. It might have if HR and MG hadn't spoken in person. The police would have known exactly how HR got involved and that he had seen and spoken to MG in person.

You're probably right. I had the impression that if he spoke to MG it was on MG's second visit, but of course HR should have recognised that he was the same man he'd seen through the window earlier.

That said, it depends on how good his recognition of faces was, as this is something that varies a lot with individuals. I'm practically face-blind, I recognise people I know well or see often, but often fail to do so if I see them after a long gap, or just out of context.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

IMO you need a theory first and then you need to assemble the evidence.

Do you not think that this approach clouds objective and unbiased thinking?

We all develop our own theory of what likely happened based on the initial evidence. Awareness that we do this as part of the human need to make sense of something and the risk it presents must be uppermost in an investigators mindset.

What is beneficial is to have various hypotheses of what could have occurred.

Such hypotheses support the concept of an evidence led investigation and not falling into the trap of accepting the evidence that fits the theory, without testing it rigorously and dismissing the evidence that does not fit the theory out of hand.

In this case there is the diary entry and the witness testimony. Some doubt the veracity of the diary entry in its own right but it is supported by the witnesses in Shorrolds Road and vice versa. It does not make it certain though....just the best working hypothesis which still needs to be tested vigorously.

I accept that there can be positive affirmation from witnesses once the matter went public.

It's important to remember that HR's first account was to MG on the same afternoon....this has to give it credibility, particularly when it is later supported by two further witnesses, one of whom provides specific detail about the Champagne bottle with ribbon (an odd observation unless it is a true account)

The issues with the witness evidence and the inconsistencies they place in the timeline is the curved ball.

It's plain wrong to dismiss what any witness saw just because it doesn't fit. We have to test all the evidence and find evidence to support or refute it. Then we will be on the way to the answer.

 

[RichardKimble]

I wanted to include this quote in the above post but pressed post too soon.

I would agree with this, whether you believe that Kipper was a real person or not (clearly there is something fishy, pun intended about him) it does seem that there was a young female matching SJL's description seen outside the property by multiple witnesses.

To dismiss this, you have to believe that there is a massive police conspiracy, which would take time and effort to come up with and maintain, or all the witnesses are lying, and the point of trying to dismiss all this is only to boost the POW theory which barring another series of conspiracies doesn't really add up. I get why DV wants to do that--he has to because he wants to put as much weight as possible on his theory.

But really we have no idea what happened to SJL except that she left the office around 12:40 and her car was found at what? 22;00 ish that same night?

Also, on another note that might get deleted I think things in the thread are getting a bit heated between those who believe in one theory or another. For my part, I'm not into that at all, I respect all of you, so if you don't agree with me on anything bring it on, because debate and discussion are always good and interesting. I don't take that as you disliking me personally lol but if you do I won't get upset (I do sometimes wear sandals with socks though, so factor that in).

Bolded bit, only 12 months later Daniel Morgan was killed in a pub car park, the reasons its not been solved are exactly what you describe , totally different crimes it could be argued but the result is the same , no charges, same police force though.

 

[WiseOwl]

I think the issue or number, of front door keys is irrelevant. Missing one? You call the owner and explain the problem. It's not as if the owner has given up possession of his property.

Nowhere is it reported of a problem obtaining access to 37 Shorrolds Road, whether by the manager in the afternoon, or subsequently by police. This indicates there were other keys to enter the house. Videcette himself has established that the police didn't break in. Has it been established definitively anyway, that there were only one set of keys held by the agent?

Conversely, it is known and reported that the front door to Suzy Lamplugh's flat was forced, presumably because police couldn't find her tenant, Nick Bryant, in time (ASage 12).

Although MG never reported a problem about gaining access to 37 Shorrolds Road, In the Crimewatch reconstruction he is clearly shown, along with another (male) colleague, knocking on the door and looking through the window to see if anyone was there. This surely indicates that, when he visited Shorrolds Road that afternoon, he did not have a key to enter the property?

 

[EddietheEagle]

Which again refutes, or at least conflicts, with the Videcette account which states that the single key(s) were ready and available in the office.

 

[EddietheEagle]

Andrew Stephen reports, page 8, that Mark Gurden saw "no sign of Susannah either in or out of the house, and no indication either that anything was amiss". That is strongly consistent with someone looking in through the windows rather than going in and seeing for certain.

From which can be deduced or hypothesised that a single set of keys was missing and further, that by the time of entry by police, a key had been obtained from the house owner if Videcette is correct in his assertion that no forced entry was made.

 

[WiseOwl]

Which again refutes, or at least conflicts, with the Videcette account which states that the single key(s) were ready and available in the office.

Indeed. There are so many contradictions from various sources in Suzy's disappearance that it's hard to decide which to believe at times.

When DV interviewed MG for his book I still can't understand why he didn't ask him if he was in the office when Suzy left and did she take the keys with her. It was only DV's companion Caroline who blurted out about the keys, for some reason DV skirted around this issue with MG and I really don't know why. After all, DV had been the one to come up with the theory about the keys still being in the office so why not just ask MG about it?

 

[asyousay]

The problem I have with this case is there is a lack of witnesses who came forward if things are not as they seem.


1) We have a mystery couple outside SR

2) We have a reported 6pm tennis appointment yet she didn’t take any of that stuff with her that morning and not a single person came forward to say she was playing that night.

3) Couple in the park

4) Argument in the street people



Why for such a famous case was there a lack of people coming forward if these people were not involved?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Bolded bit, only 12 months later Daniel Morgan was killed in a pub car park, the reasons its not been solved are exactly what you describe , totally different crimes it could be argued but the result is the same , no charges, same police force though.

OCG strategy has been known to include corrupting police, the judicial process, HM prison service as well as using the influence within the Freemasons.

This will always be a real threat where serious and organised crime groups are involved.

The police departments that deal with offences involving OGC's, together with the NCA now have rigorous measures in place to prevent such compromise.

There is no indication that SJL was involved with OCG's and nothing to suggest that the SJL enquiry was corrupt.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Andrew Stephen reports, page 8, that Mark Gurden saw "no sign of Susannah either in or out of the house, and no indication either that anything was amiss". That is strongly consistent with someone looking in through the windows rather than going in and seeing for certain.

From which can be deduced or hypothesised that a single set of keys was missing and further, that by the time of entry by police, a key had been obtained from the house owner if Videcette is correct in his assertion that no forced entry was made.

In fairness it means that MG needs to be asked directly what exactly he did do, when, where, why, how and who with.

I don't doubt that the detail is in the statement he gave to police, but for whatever reason AS chose not to expand on it in his book.

So many questions, so few answers!

JMO

 

[EddietheEagle]

The problem I have with this case is there is a lack of witnesses who came forward if things are not as they seem.


1) We have a mystery couple outside SR

2) We have a reported 6pm tennis appointment yet she didn’t take any of that stuff with her that morning and not a single person came forward to say she was playing that night.

3) Couple in the park

4) Argument in the street people



Why for such a famous case was there a lack of people coming forward if these people were not involved?

I'd hazard a guess and say that all available information was recorded - 25,000 record cards' worth of it by one account - but much of it either not made available to the author or not made use of if it indeed were known to him.

I don't see any authoritative reference to a tennis appointment anywhere.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Although MG never reported a problem about gaining access to 37 Shorrolds Road, In the Crimewatch reconstruction he is clearly shown, along with another (male) colleague, knocking on the door and looking through the window to see if anyone was there. This surely indicates that, when he visited Shorrolds Road that afternoon, he did not have a key to enter the property?

The Crimewatch Oct 1986 programme featuring the reconstruction was introduced by the presenter by saying that a lot of the facts had become obsurred by rumour and gossip.
The reconstruction being shown is based on entirely what is known.
The keys to 37 Shorrolds with its distinctive yellow key tag that Suzy had taken with her when she left the office was still missing.

I agree WiseOwl MG did not have the key when he visited 37SR that afternoon he knocked the door and looked through the window.

MOO

 

[EddietheEagle]

In fairness it means that MG needs to be asked directly what exactly he did do, when, where, why, how and who with.

I don't doubt that the detail is in the statement he gave to police, but for whatever reason AS chose not to expand on it in his book.

So many questions, so few answers!

JMO

It's frustrating that not one of those documentaries really goes into the minutiae of the case. Netflix would probably do it better as they build up the story in episodes which would give time to build the important details. Videcette may well have unearthed some snippets of value even though he appears interested only in working towards his preset destination.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It's frustrating that not one of those documentaries really goes into the minutiae of the case. Netflix would probably do it better as they build up the story in episodes which would give time to build the important details. Videcette may well have unearthed some snippets of value even though he appears interested only in working towards his preset destination.

DV asks closed questions and in my view steers the witness towards his desired narrative.

I could forgive the questioning style of an amateur but DV is a trained detective and has worked on major investigations.

DV undoubtedly knows the score when it comes to gold standard interview technique.

That he chooses to put all his training and experience to one side, only leads me to conclude that he is not particularly interested in searching for the truth, irrespective of the answer.

JMO

 

[EddietheEagle]

A lot of signs of stalking in this case as well: anonymous 'phone calls to Suzy at her flat and place of work, some answered by her flatmate (he reports on these in a Sunday Magazine article from 1988 which I have yet to unearth); flower bouquets delivered to the office and flat; someone staring in at her through the shop window.

In those crimes of his which are known about definitively, Cannan seems to strike opportunistically, working in the moment, striking at random almost. Moreover, it is almost infantile, the way he leaves clues strewn around the place. The Shirley Banks case was handed to police on a plate.

The Suzy Lamplugh case by contrast seems premeditated and planned i.e. not really Cannan's style. Or was he 'entertaining' himself while whiling away the hours inside?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Very sensible approach, debate is good as long as it’s not personal. This thread is a very active one and SJL’s case a challenging one.
No real concrete fact apart from (as you say) left the office at 12.40 ish, car found at 10.03pm ish.
As I’ve said before the key to this is determining when SJL’s car appears in Stevenage Rd. This helps with confining which witnesses are most likely correct and what narrative fits best.
I’d say use the best sources available, ignore opinions, focus on facts, and pull together a theory.
IMO you need a theory first and then you need to assemble the evidence. There’s enough intelligent people reading this thread to get the bits of the puzzle in the correct order.

Agree. If we don’t have any evidence to support our theories no matter what we lean towards believing (which is ultimately a form of bias on all our behalves), how do we move forwards?

No sarcasm intended, genuine question.

 

[Cluesleuth]

It's frustrating that not one of those documentaries really goes into the minutiae of the case. Netflix would probably do it better as they build up the story in episodes which would give time to build the important details. Videcette may well have unearthed some snippets of value even though he appears interested only in working towards his preset destination.

Its still classed an open case so there are restrictions on what can be released to the public.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Agree. If we don’t have any evidence to support our theories no matter what we lean towards believing (which is ultimately a form of bias on all our behalves), how do we move forwards?

No sarcasm intended, genuine question.

research the back ground of the witnesses, this will confirm if their eye witness statements can be relied upon as genuine and true.
MOO

 

[EddietheEagle]

If there are serious, interested and capable bodies outside the police, happy to investigate a case gone cold, then why shouldn't they be given full rein?

That would set the cat among the pigeons!

I dare say a lot of the case information could be released without compromising any continuing police investigation. Predictably, the police would be highly resistant. It would require political intervention.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

If there are serious, interested and capable bodies outside the police, happy to investigate a case gone cold, then why shouldn't they should be given full rein?

That would set the cat among the pigeons!

I dare say a lot of the case information could be released without compromising any continung police investigation. Predictably, the police would be highly resistant. It would require political intervention.

100% this IMO