UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #5

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Other than it was 'Screws of the World' material did he ever say what it was?

DL would have likely regarded her daughter as a slapper if she'd slept with one bloke, but this AS comment sounds like it might be about this area and like we might be talking a lot more than one.

If so, the police decision to give up inquiring into the contacts in the diary makes more sense. What if there were 300, for example?

It is also interesting that there was no way of working out who the diary belonged to - CV said there was no name / contact number in it. Who keeps a key diary with important contacts in it, but leaves no information in it that would allow someone to reunite you with it if you lost it?

I think it might well have been possible to repatriate the diary (I’ve done so before by detective work & ringing around, but maybe CV cut to chase by calling her bank). (chequebook with diary).

The police gave up halfway through checking out the owners of the very definitive BMW seem in Shorrolds too, age/class etc, lack of resources I think.

IMO what was ‘kept back’ & the diary didn’t point directly to numerous lovers.

AS didn’t give any specific details.

 

[Terryb808]

The police were lax at the time and (maybe the lack of resources is responsible) started lengthy enquiries, then just gave up.

When you look at other cases that have been solved (against the odds) it’s only happened because the officer in charge took a single minded approach and didn’t give up.

We seem to focus on the loss of the diary (Friday / Sunday), this is IMO only important if it had a butterfly effect.

There’s no evidence that JC took the diary in the PoW on Friday evening. What is odd is that AL changed his story when he was interviewed by DV. At this point DV had not released his book, so AL couldn’t have know that DV believed SJL was murdered in the PoW.

It’s possible that all those closely involved are 100% behind the police narrative. DV departing from this when he interviewed AL results in his abrupt response.
That might also explain is rather odd comment “ You’ll never find her, no one will”.

If I could ask AL one question it would be to clarify this statement.

Regards to what AS withheld, his content that covers her time on the QE2 is certainly not what DL would have approved of.
So if this made it into the book, you have to ask yourself what the withheld content must have been.

After all this time it’s surprising that this withheld material has not come to light.

 

[Pinkizzy]

I'm interested in DVs next bombshell. Is he gonna expose the identity of the killer now or later?

 

[Terryb808]

I'm interested in DVs next bombshell. Is he gonna expose the identity of the killer now or later?

Without irrefutable proof I can’t see how he can do this.

 

[WestLondoner]

AL suggests they were in the POW in a doc that was all about JC clearly being culpable, the police were/are convinced & JC being named as ‘only suspect’ is/was most unusual & significant. I think you have to view AL’s comments in that light.

AL apparently wasn’t at the Saturday 21st as her plus one & she’d told others she wanted to break up. The Sunday phone call apparently about the Tues party and logistics therein. Odd possibly, as both AL & SL familiar with the flat & the man a friend of both.

AL's role in this as a muddier-of-the-waters is quite pronounced I think. If we assume CV is clean and is reliable when he said he found the stuff on the Sunday, then one of AL's accounts can't be true because he gave two that differ, one to the documentary and another to DV. He told the plod he has SJL had a good relationship but she wanted to end it and pointedly gave him the cold shoulder all weekend. This is notable on the Sunday when he followed her to the coast and she then went back to town without him. I don't get how they were speaking on the phone on Sunday night about some event on Tuesday when they had had all day Sunday to do that.

 

[WestLondoner]

I'm interested in DVs next bombshell. Is he gonna expose the identity of the killer now or later?

He apparently thinks it's CV given how he's depicted in the book, but unless he's managed to assemble a load of undisclosed material implicating CV in other similar offences later, I don't see how he has any case against him.

All he has is the possibility that a body could in theory be hidden at or near the PoW. For this to be so, he'd need to show there was nobody there but CV that lunchtime, i.e. the pub was closed and Mrs CV had left the building. While that's possible, it is not at all clear to me from his book that this was in fact the case. The PoW feels like somewhere that ought to have been searched in 1986 and never was, but maybe the police who went there that evening bottomed this out at the time. If they'd asked CV "How much did you take at lunchtime?" and he showed them the afternoon's takings, that would have told them right away that the pub was open, hence no opportunity to kill someone and hide a body.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Without irrefutable proof I can’t see how he can do this.

I guess its a prompt for regular customers from 1986 to come forward with their stories

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

AL's role in this as a muddier-of-the-waters is quite pronounced I think. If we assume CV is clean and is reliable when he said he found the stuff on the Sunday, then one of AL's accounts can't be true because he gave two that differ, one to the documentary and another to DV. He told the plod he has SJL had a good relationship but she wanted to end it and pointedly gave him the cold shoulder all weekend. This is notable on the Sunday when he followed her to the coast and she then went back to town without him. I don't get how they were speaking on the phone on Sunday night about some event on Tuesday when they had had all day Sunday to do that.

He apparently thinks it's CV given how he's depicted in the book, but unless he's managed to assemble a load of undisclosed material implicating CV in other similar offences later, I don't see how he has any case against him.

All he has is the possibility that a body could in theory be hidden at or near the PoW. For this to be so, he'd need to show there was nobody there but CV that lunchtime, i.e. the pub was closed and Mrs CV had left the building. While that's possible, it is not at all clear to me from his book that this was in fact the case. The PoW feels like somewhere that ought to have been searched in 1986 and never was, but maybe the police who went there that evening bottomed this out at the time. If they'd asked CV "How much did you take at lunchtime?" and he showed them the afternoon's takings, that would have told them right away that the pub was open, hence no opportunity to kill someone and hide a body.

DV seemed even to think an arrest was likely, CV, so surely he must have much more he can’t disclose? He presented quite a lot to the police. An additional issue seemed to be many on team seemed unaware of earlier, pre 2000 detail. All irrelevant if JC of course.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

The police were lax at the time and (maybe the lack of resources is responsible) started lengthy enquiries, then just gave up.

When you look at other cases that have been solved (against the odds) it’s only happened because the officer in charge took a single minded approach and didn’t give up.

We seem to focus on the loss of the diary (Friday / Sunday), this is IMO only important if it had a butterfly effect.

There’s no evidence that JC took the diary in the PoW on Friday evening. What is odd is that AL changed his story when he was interviewed by DV. At this point DV had not released his book, so AL couldn’t have know that DV believed SJL was murdered in the PoW.

It’s possible that all those closely involved are 100% behind the police narrative. DV departing from this when he interviewed AL results in his abrupt response.
That might also explain is rather odd comment “ You’ll never find her, no one will”.

If I could ask AL one question it would be to clarify this statement.

Regards to what AS withheld, his content that covers her time on the QE2 is certainly not what DL would have approved of.
So if this made it into the book, you have to ask yourself what the withheld content must have been.

After all this time it’s surprising that this withheld material has not come to light.

I wonder if it was this unfortunate disclosure that meant the Ls issued NDAs? It might explain why some distanced selves from 87.

 

[WestLondoner]

DV seemed even to think an arrest was likely, CV, so surely he must have much more he can’t disclose? He presented quite a lot to the police. An additional issue seemed to be many on team seemed unaware of earlier, pre 2000 detail. All irrelevant if JC of course.

One struggles to imagine what's in his dossier unless it's background on CV. It wouldn't take many pages to set out why the PoW is important so something else must be padding it out.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

One struggles to imagine what's in his dossier unless it's background on CV. It wouldn't take many pages to set out why the PoW is important so something else must be padding it out.

What was your/others interpretation of ND, the witness, that DV tracked down? I noted also that there as an Irish man who worked as a cellar man in the POW, separate from ND. [DV]. ND episode, P.157 DV:

'He'd [ND] remembered the house as it was one he particularly liked' [NB: photos of it at time, run down, of course may have spotted potential etc, but aesthetically on the face of it?].

'ND wasn't his real name, it couldn't be, he'd used an alias' [DV]

'He described the woman as clutching a set of keys in her right hand on a large yellow tag and looking out toward the street'. [DV]

'Why was his account of events such a perfect fit for their [the police's] ...story' P.159, DV

If ND saw SL holding the keys on a bright, yellow, large fob he's a very important witness indeed.

 

[Pinkizzy]

It looks like a witness has made a statement after 37 years with a sighting of the suspect somewhere. Colin Sutton is investigating the Bunny Girl murders and one witness came forward after nearly 50 years

 

[lee sumner]

@lee sumner, NB: quote from article upthread, SL was talking to her father about her purchasing plans, extensively, on last night before she went missing. Her parents only wished they had ‘taken her more seriously’. Some deal had been apparently struck between her and a Sturgis client. A joint purchase.

She had tried and fairly recently failed to sell the flat. More than once.

A new man, possibly irrelevant, but the new international, Mayfair man [source AS] had become closer when AL away. Not named in book [AS] but named in Press at time. She may have planned to see him on Sunday.

It’s interesting to note AS was asked to change/omit an inconsequential detail from his manuscript. I don’t believe this new man played any nefarious role but could the butterfly effect have played out if minor details changed?

We do know SL was on phone, apparently to pub, in a big rush ‘half sitting, half standing’ moments before leaving office, book suggests to the ‘Landlord’s wife’ [AS].

Her address/notebook/diary

Pocket sized & seemingly vitally important, CV told DV she said ‘my diary, have you got my diary’? DV also flags that others don’t remember seeing it before.

AS

He interviewed some/many of those he outlines in book, not just blindly going on police narrative. He wasn’t infallible but some of the accounts are very detailed & he was/is a stellar investigative journalist.

thanks for the info. i was wondering when you was going to send the article. i believe SLP had 2 people view her flat, but these viewings fell through, but she was hoping to clinch a sale soon.

 

[WestLondoner]

What was your/others interpretation of ND, the witness, that DV tracked down? I noted also that there as an Irish man who worked as a cellar man in the POW, separate from ND. [DV]. ND episode, P.157 DV:

'He'd [ND] remembered the house as it was one he particularly liked' [NB: photos of it at time, run down, of course may have spotted potential etc, but aesthetically on the face of it?].

'ND wasn't his real name, it couldn't be, he'd used an alias' [DV]

'He described the woman as clutching a set of keys in her right hand on a large yellow tag and looking out toward the street'. [DV]

'Why was his account of events such a perfect fit for their [the police's] ...story' P.159, DV

If ND saw SL holding the keys on a bright, yellow, large fob he's a very important witness indeed.

DV is sceptical of the reliability of this account because the witness took several weeks to come forward with it and then apparently added nothing that he could not have seen in the TV reconstruction.

I'm a bit sceptical of the 37SR sightings generally because you only ever hear the one where it's Cannan outside at 1pm and QED. In the various TV documentaries you never hear it mentioned that she might not even have taken the keys; that she left no trace of having been inside; that other witnesses gave different descriptions; that HR later ID'ed a 45 year old man as the late-20s-ish Mr Kipper; that several of the supposed "corroborating" witnesses actually undermine the 1pm sighting by seeing something different perhaps as late as 4pm; that several other sightings in 37SR are never explained, such as the two white Fiestas seen or the two men seen waiting in a dark car (JC and JT?).

Interestingly, DV and the police agree that BW's sighting at 2.45pm didn't happen and she got the day wrong, but for different reasons - DV thinks SJL was already dead at the PoW by that time, while the police preferred to believe WJ who said the car was in Stevenage Road at that time, not in FPR.

Of all the sightings, I personally reckon only BW's is accurate. SJL possibly met someone at 37SR, but never went inside and was instead persuaded to drive someone elsewhere. The logistics and car management required for this suggest to me that any Mr Kipper had an accomplice.

 

[Terryb808]

The SR witnesses all tend to contradict each other, so it’s a bit of a mess. Doesn’t reflect well on the Met, they went with it without question.

DV has to ignore BW because it sinks his narrative completely, she was already dead according to DV

On the other hand the police have no reason whatsoever to ignore BW because it could have actually been their prime suspect JC next to SJL.

I agree with WestLondoner that BW is correct and it was SJL she saw, big question is where were they going, and exactly when did SJL’s car appear in Stevenage Road.
The time BW saw SJL in FPR and the time her car was back in SR dictate how far they went.

This theory depends on there being a single perpetrator, she could have ended up anywhere is there were two perpetrators,

 

[Terryb808]

Just a quick note to follow on from the above.

To have any idea of what happened to SJL on the 28th July 1986 we need an anchor point.

If this anchor point is the BW sighting at 2.30pm on the FPR it doesn’t really matter where she went between 12.40 and 2,30pm.

Yes it would be good to establish this, but what is important is what happened after 2.30pm and who was her male passenger.

 

[lee sumner]

The police were lax at the time and (maybe the lack of resources is responsible) started lengthy enquiries, then just gave up.

When you look at other cases that have been solved (against the odds) it’s only happened because the officer in charge took a single minded approach and didn’t give up.

We seem to focus on the loss of the diary (Friday / Sunday), this is IMO only important if it had a butterfly effect.

There’s no evidence that JC took the diary in the PoW on Friday evening. What is odd is that AL changed his story when he was interviewed by DV. At this point DV had not released his book, so AL couldn’t have know that DV believed SJL was murdered in the PoW.

It’s possible that all those closely involved are 100% behind the police narrative. DV departing from this when he interviewed AL results in his abrupt response.
That might also explain is rather odd comment “ You’ll never find her, no one will”.

If I could ask AL one question it would be to clarify this statement.

Regards to what AS withheld, his content that covers her time on the QE2 is certainly not what DL would have approved of.
So if this made it into the book, you have to ask yourself what the withheld content must have been.

After all this time it’s surprising that this withheld material has not come to light.

i have always been curious about the SLP secret that AS kept out of his book. i would love to know.

 

[Terryb808]

i have always been curious about the SLP secret that AS kept out of his book. i would love to know.

Well AFAIK the secret has never escaped, what is interesting and maybe linked to her disappearance is the joint property purchase.

If I’m correct (thanks to LSW) then SJL was pulling out of this deal. Depending on what this deal entails and how much the other partner put into the venture.
If he lost a lot of money he just might have been very angry indeed.

 

[lee sumner]

I think it might well have been possible to repatriate the diary (I’ve done so before by detective work & ringing around, but maybe CV cut to chase by calling her bank). (chequebook with diary).

The police gave up halfway through checking out the owners of the very definitive BMW seem in Shorrolds too, age/class etc, lack of resources I think.

IMO what was ‘kept back’ & the diary didn’t point directly to numerous lovers.

AS didn’t give any specific details.

i would love to know what they found out about SLP. AS kept it out of his book, but i have always been curious about what she did.

 

[WestLondoner]

To have any idea of what happened to SJL on the 28th July 1986 we need an anchor point.

If this anchor point is the BW sighting at 2.30pm on the FPR it doesn’t really matter where she went between 12.40 and 2,30pm.

Great point. The 2.30 sighting really did need to be explained away, by the police in 1986 and by DV in 2021, because if it happened then the rest of their respective suppositions fall apart.

If BW is right and she was in her car in the FPR at 2.30, then WJ is wrong and she wasn't at 123SR at 12.50. We thus have to toss the entire 123SR stuff in the bin and all we know is that her car was there by 5.15 when the chap who came home from work found it overlapping his garage. As you say, it also then matters not what - if anything - went down at 37SR, because 2 hours later she was still driving around alive and well. She was not at liberty to just absent herself from the office for 2 hours without explanation, so I am sure per BW that she would indeed have been "looking serious" at this point. She went somewhere else and didn't survive, and someone tall enough to need to move her car seat then drove her car to 123SR and left it there.

Another point about 37SR not often made is that it was on at an asking price of £128,000. That is actually not very much by west London 1986 standards. For comparison I moved to London in 1988 in my early 20s and had a budget of £105,000. If this was Cannan posing as a prosperous house buyer ten years older than that, he should have had a lot more to spend than £128k, especially if he aimed to impress a woman like SJL with how loaded he was. He should have been giving off vibes of being a City trader on £125k a year, which was entirely possible in 1986. To get her attention he'd need to be looking for seven bedrooms in Chelsea for £500k, not three bedrooms in the Earl's Court @rse-end of Fulham for a quarter of that. A thirtysomething bloke looking to spend £120-odd k was in fact no better off than SJL, and perhaps less so.