UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #4

[Konstantin]

I'd include a link to a broadsheet if I could find one. And I would include a link to an article in a peer reviewed journal but you wouldnt understand the meaning of that

Hey let's all agree to disagree here.

Peace.

 

[RichardKimble]

Come to think of it, though, I do remember seeing someone who looked a lot like Mr Kipper in 1986. I saw him on Top of the Pops, and I am personally confident it was Mr Kipper. I wonder if I should report this?

Fish, lead singer with Marillion perhaps?!

That was Shaky,

more likely Iggy Pop, real wild child.

 

[asyousay]

I am not convinced Suzy intended to play that Monday night. Nobody came forward and she didn’t have any Tennis stuff with her and add in the 6pm appointment.


It seems like her mum didn’t know a lot of what went on in her daughters life.

 

[WestLondoner]

That was Shaky,

more likely Iggy Pop, real wild child.

Did Shaky drink at the PoW?

 

[EddietheEagle]

I am not convinced Suzy intended to play that Monday night. Nobody came forward and she didn’t have any Tennis stuff with her and add in the 6pm appointment.

You can go home to change when you play tennis - in a public park, say - or you can go home to collect your gear before playing at a local club. Why ferry around tennis gear all day when you're playing in the evening after work? And who is to say her gear wasn't in the car then removed? Were her racquets still at home? Was a tennis date put off when the cheque book resurfaced and the appointment to collect it was made? The record on tennis appears moot.

That a playing partner didn't come forward is indicative, possibly, but hardly definitive. What if it were part of Mr Kipper's ruse? A 6 o'clock appointment did not rule out playing later for the reasons already given.

Mother and daughter were together the evening prior. The two could quite conceivably have discussed plans for the week ahead, even were SL a little light on detail. Why then would a distraught mother pull something out of her back pocket at a critical moment and potentially confuse police who were pulling out all the stops to find her daughter? It doesn't make sense. I don't think, therefore, a tennis date should be dismissed out of hand. We need more information.

The more I ponder on this case, the more I see SL and JC being acquainted. SL may well have left willingly with Mr Kipper. Some called JC Billy Liar. And Billy could have boasted to SL that he'd once taken a set off Jimmy Connors! Pure speculation, of course.

 

[asyousay]

You can go home to change when you play tennis - in a public park, say - or you can go home to collect your gear before playing at a local club. Why ferry around tennis gear all day when you're playing in the evening after work? And who is to say her gear wasn't in the car then removed? Were her racquets still at home? Was a tennis date put off when the cheque book resurfaced and the appointment to collect it was made? The record on tennis appears moot.

That a playing partner didn't come forward is indicative, possibly, but hardly definitive. What if it were part of Mr Kipper's ruse? A 6 o'clock appointment did not rule out playing later for the reasons already given.

Mother and daughter were together the evening prior. The two could quite conceivably have discussed plans for the week ahead, even were SL a little light on detail. Why then would a distraught mother pull something out of her back pocket at a critical moment and potentially confuse police who were pulling out all the stops to find her daughter? It doesn't make sense. I don't think, therefore, a tennis date should be dismissed out of hand. We need more information.

The more I ponder on this case, the more I see SL and JC being acquainted. SL may well have left willingly with Mr Kipper. Some called JC Billy Liar. And Billy could have boasted to SL that he'd once taken a set off Jimmy Connors! Pure speculation, of course.

I highly doubt a middle Class Suzy had plans to go to a local park and play tennis that night. Not a single friend came forward to say they had plans to play Tennis that night such speaks volumes.


If Suzy had plans with a man for example with how uptight her mom was I highly doubt she would of told her of such plans.


MOO

 

[WestLondoner]

You can go home to change when you play tennis - in a public park, say - or you can go home to collect your gear before playing at a local club. Why ferry around tennis gear all day when you're playing in the evening after work? And who is to say her gear wasn't in the car then removed? Were her racquets still at home?

Her tennis stuff was found at home.

 

[EddietheEagle]

It presupposes her mother actually made the claim and I haven't seen any authoritative sources for this.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I am not convinced Suzy intended to play that Monday night. Nobody came forward and she didn’t have any Tennis stuff with her and add in the 6pm appointment.


It seems like her mum didn’t know a lot of what went on in her daughters life.

It seems odd for the suggestion to be that SJL had three arrangements for 6pm - to pick up her stuff from the PoW, to meet a potentially high value estate agency client, and to play tennis.

I reckon most mums wouldn't know much about what goes on in 20 odd year old daughters lives, especially when they don't live at home, have plenty of disposable income and lots of friends to do a wide variety of fun things with. More so in the days before mobile phones!

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

You can go home to change when you play tennis - in a public park, say - or you can go home to collect your gear before playing at a local club. Why ferry around tennis gear all day when you're playing in the evening after work? And who is to say her gear wasn't in the car then removed? Were her racquets still at home? Was a tennis date put off when the cheque book resurfaced and the appointment to collect it was made? The record on tennis appears moot.

That a playing partner didn't come forward is indicative, possibly, but hardly definitive. What if it were part of Mr Kipper's ruse? A 6 o'clock appointment did not rule out playing later for the reasons already given.

Mother and daughter were together the evening prior. The two could quite conceivably have discussed plans for the week ahead, even were SL a little light on detail. Why then would a distraught mother pull something out of her back pocket at a critical moment and potentially confuse police who were pulling out all the stops to find her daughter? It doesn't make sense. I don't think, therefore, a tennis date should be dismissed out of hand. We need more information.

The more I ponder on this case, the more I see SL and JC being acquainted. SL may well have left willingly with Mr Kipper. Some called JC Billy Liar. And Billy could have boasted to SL that he'd once taken a set off Jimmy Connors! Pure speculation, of course.

I'm not sure a mother would fabricate something so much as perhaps the tennis match was a polite excuse of SJL to decline say, having dinner with the rents of a Friday night? or to cover for intending to date someone that wasn't AL?

 

[Cherwell]

The tennis may not have been a firm arrangement.
As for going to the pub, isn't it possible that the visit was planned for "after 6 pm" rather than 6 pm on the dot? It may just have been a reference to opening time. There wouldn't have been any need to make an appointment, just call in when the pub was open.

 

[Konstantin]

The tennis may not have been a firm arrangement.
As for going to the pub, isn't it possible that the visit was planned for "after 6 pm" rather than 6 pm on the dot? It may just have been a reference to opening time. There wouldn't have been any need to make an appointment, just call in when the pub was open.

Exactly, pubs are famously open until quite late. And it was very close to her home. The most sensible answer is that she would drop by on her way home after she'd finished her 18:00 appointment with the client, or after she'd done whatever she planned to do after that.

There just seems very little need for SJL to have had to fabricate a work appointment to go driving almost home to do something she could have done on her way home, at a place that was continuously open until 23:00. The officer that DV spoke to when he presented his theory to the Met said that the relief landlord and his wife had been spoken to at the time and that the pub was open that lunchtime. I think this is a non starter.

 

[WestLondoner]

There just seems very little need for SJL to have had to fabricate a work appointment to go driving almost home to do something she could have done on her way home, at a place that was continuously open until 23:00.

Unless she needed the diary sooner.

 

[WiseOwl]

Exactly, pubs are famously open until quite late. And it was very close to her home. The most sensible answer is that she would drop by on her way home after she'd finished her 18:00 appointment with the client, or after she'd done whatever she planned to do after that.

There just seems very little need for SJL to have had to fabricate a work appointment to go driving almost home to do something she could have done on her way home, at a place that was continuously open until 23:00. The officer that DV spoke to when he presented his theory to the Met said that the relief landlord and his wife had been spoken to at the time and that the pub was open that lunchtime. I think this is a non starter.

In 1986 pubs were open 12.00 - 3.00 & then 5.30 until 11.00, except Sundays when they closed at 10.30. This all changed in 1988 when the Licensing Act was bought in.

We know the PoW had a stock take that morning but don't know exactly what time it opened.

As for the tennis, we know that Suzy played tennis but has it ever been said who she actually used to play with? I also notice there is a tennis club just around the corner from Stevenage Road - maybe this is where she used to play?

 

[asyousay]

Unless she needed the diary sooner.

Why then make a 6pm appointment to fetch it?


She was a responsible diligent worker so this just making up a fictitious appointment just doesn’t make sense.


She was due a lunch break anyway at some point that afternoon so why would she need to lie to run a quick errand?

 

[WestLondoner]

Why then make a 6pm appointment to fetch it?


She was a responsible diligent worker so this just making up a fictitious appointment just doesn’t make sense.


She was due a lunch break anyway at some point that afternoon so why would she need to lie to run a quick errand?

DV suggests that when she got her lunch break depended on who else wanted to go at the same time. The apparent viewing gave her dibs ahead of anyone else to go out.

Your entire social life was in your diary. Hers was notably baroque. She may have wanted to cancel or rearrange her tennis, for example. In the days before mobile phones, you had to call people on landlines, and at times when you knew they'd be there to pick up - so to cancel tennis at 7 she'd have needed to phone by 6, before whoever it was left work or home to go there.

Most people did not have a home answerphone in 1986. I got one from work in 1986 (it was the size of a typewriter), as I worked from home, and this was considered a swanky accessory by my peers. It was a very big deal when we were further given a gadget that allowed you to phone your own answerphone and have it play messages back to you without you going home.

 

[Cherwell]

Your entire social life was in your diary. Hers was notably baroque. She may have wanted to cancel or rearrange her tennis, for example. In the days before mobile phones, you had to call people on landlines, and at times when you knew they'd be there to pick up - so to cancel tennis at 7 she'd have needed to phone by 6, before whoever it was left work or home to go there.

Most people did not have a home answerphone in 1986. I got one from work in 1986 (it was the size of a typewriter), as I worked from home, and this was considered a swanky accessory by my peers. It was a very big deal when we were further given a gadget that allowed you to phone your own answerphone and have it play messages back to you without you going home.

Agreed, but as I mentioned before, we tended to know the numbers of our regular contacts by heart. And phone numbers were easier to remember anyway as the area code and exchange numbers stayed the same.
Failing that, you could get the number from directory enquiries (or the telephone directory itself - most offices would have had the local directory). Or phone a mutual friend whose number you did know.

 

[WestLondoner]

Agreed, but as I mentioned before, we tended to know the numbers of our regular contacts by heart. And phone numbers were easier to remember anyway as the area code and exchange numbers stayed the same.
Failing that, you could get the number from directory enquiries (or the telephone directory itself - most offices would have had the local directory). Or phone a mutual friend whose number you did know.

We did, yes - but we weren't four-timing our boy / girlfriend...how many phone numbers can a girl remember?

 

[asyousay]

DV suggests that when she got her lunch break depended on who else wanted to go at the same time. The apparent viewing gave her dibs ahead of anyone else to go out.

Your entire social life was in your diary. Hers was notably baroque. She may have wanted to cancel or rearrange her tennis, for example. In the days before mobile phones, you had to call people on landlines, and at times when you knew they'd be there to pick up - so to cancel tennis at 7 she'd have needed to phone by 6, before whoever it was left work or home to go there.

Most people did not have a home answerphone in 1986. I got one from work in 1986 (it was the size of a typewriter), as I worked from home, and this was considered a swanky accessory by my peers. It was a very big deal when we were further given a gadget that allowed you to phone your own answerphone and have it play messages back to you without you going home.

You think she would of risked her job to go and collect her diary?

She had a lunch break which is a legal requirement so at some point she got a break where if she was that desperate to collect it could of done and that wouldn’t of involved risking her job by making up a appointment.

 

[Konstantin]

Why then make a 6pm appointment to fetch it?


She was a responsible diligent worker so this just making up a fictitious appointment just doesn’t make sense.


She was due a lunch break anyway at some point that afternoon so why would she need to lie to run a quick errand?

I don't think she did make a 6pm appointment to fetch it, she just said she would be along later that day.

Was it reported anywhere that she said 6pm? The diary appointment does suggest that she could not have gone at that time, but that isn't an issue given that the pub was open until 11pm. I don't think that there is really compelling evidence to suggest that SJL went to the pub that lunchtime rather than the place she said she was going. I know DV tries to make a case for it, I've read his book twice, but he is relying on two things:

1. Trying to claim she didn't take the keys for 37SR which relies on the Sturgis staff being really dim, and the police being the same--sorry, that doesn't really hold water to me. It also relies on the dubious idea that the door did not appear to be damaged in the press photos from a couple of days later. That is also really not very convincing.

2. Trying to claim that she had no other time to get the diary that day because there was an appointment in her diary for 6pm and that she must have been playing tennis at 6pm (at an unspecified location with an unspecified person who never came forward and her kit was in her flat, based on her unreliable mum's telling a radio journalist that she was). Pubs open until 11pm, it was near her house. She could have done the appointment, played tennis and STILL got the diary.

I think DV is not a reliable narrator. I wanted him to be, but I don't think he is. He seems to have a personal issue with the Met, and that is colouring his actions. I think he does bring some interesting info in his book but it might not be what he intended-- e.g. the officer he spoke to when presenting the evidence revealing that the police talked to the interim landlord and his wife and that the pub was open that lunchtime. Anyway, I don't think there is a huge conspiracy here to cover up...something... just a sad case of ambiguous loss (no body) and so no conclusion to the case, and the police can't reveal all the evidence because that is standard practice. Not everything is in the public domain.