UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #6

[RichardKimble]

I really think this thread is in danger of going round in circles.
.
It's great that so many people are looking at this case, but there's too much repetition/explanation going on.

This case needs a dedicated forum.

You can't organise research, or keep track of anything in a single thread, which runs hundreds of pages deep.

I've been involved in the births of a couple of forums involving unsolved cases, and I think the Lamplugh case needs it too.

Please PM me if you're interested in being involved with such a project.

In a way it would be a short one, what's actually known about the disappearance of SJL can be counted on the fingers of one hand.imo

 

[Konstantin]

In a way it would be a short one, what's actually known about the disappearance of SJL can be counted on the fingers of one hand.imo

A FAQ might be more helpful than a forum, if it just gave known facts and not speculations.

 

[WestLondoner]

A FAQ might be more helpful than a forum, if it just gave known facts and not speculations.

Including perhaps a section of "FAQINPTA": Frequently Asked Questions It's Not Possible To Answer, such as

Does JC look like the HFSR
How did the police eliminate PSS/TS
Was there any evidence of SJL at any Sturgis property on that day

etc...

 

[Cherwell]

And USPAF
Unsupported Statements Presented As Facts

 

[Konstantin]

Including perhaps a section of "FAQINPTA": Frequently Asked Questions It's Not Possible To Answer, such as

Does JC look like the HFSR
How did the police eliminate PSS/TS
Was there any evidence of SJL at any Sturgis property on that day

etc...

That would actually be very useful.

Add to it, "is there any evidence that SJL took the keys to Shorrolds road"

 

[Eastend Eagle]

The

You are 100 % correct There is no hard evidence to connect JC to suzy only speculation and hypothesis. On actual factual beyond reasonable doubt evidence there is not one iota of evidence to corroborate the statements from Sturgis staff that suzy left the office at 12.40 alive

.we could argue the fact that her friend seen her with a male companion in her car at 2.45 and her friend stated suzy was driving and not erratically so ,if true ,where was suzy from 12.40 until this time ,A woman whom normally would be a very good time keeper and sneaking away from work was out of character . I could list at least 10 other cases where friends were wrong .

So if we are going to suspect JC as the culprit, should we not suspect others whom did have a known connection to suzy and prehaps harboured ill feelings towards her or in an act of manslaughter or a crime of passion
AL was eliminated because of 11 statements .How many were taken to corroborate individual Sturgis staff's 'truths ' ?Considering JC was not an early suspect who did the police have in mind after her boyfriend or was everybody else so hastily overlooked and apparently so flippantly eliminated that they had none and JC just happened to conveniently be placed / fall into their laps .

And as her family including Mr and Mrs lamplugh and siblings have stated they are happy her murderer (jc) is locked up and law enforcements hunch is that jc is guilty. Where is the incentive to take a fresh look at the individuals known to suzy and re start an investigation from last factual proof of life.

Marc Guerdon?

Tell us What You Know

James Calvert?

Kathleen Reidy, are you out there?

You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something that you later rely on in Court.

 

[WiseOwl]

That would actually be very useful.

Add to it, "is there any evidence that SJL took the keys to Shorrolds road"

Well, lets say this is the first item people would discuss. So what's the evidence that she took the keys?

1. The police investigation at the time states that at least two members of Sturgis staff saw Suzy take the keys.
2. AS puts this information in his book, saying that MG & KR saw Suzy go behind MG's desk to take the keys.
3. At the end of the Crimewatch reconstruction about Suzy's disappearance in 1986, DSI Carter says that the keys have never been found.

So what do we have to support the theory that she never took the keys? DV of course reckons that she didn't take the keys, but what actual evidence is there to support his claims?

 

[su5ie]

Well, lets say this is the first item people would discuss. So what's the evidence that she took the keys?

1. The police investigation at the time states that at least two members of Sturgis staff saw Suzy take the keys.
2. AS puts this information in his book, saying that MG & KR saw Suzy go behind MG's desk to take the keys.
3. At the end of the Crimewatch reconstruction about Suzy's disappearance in 1986, DSI Carter says that the keys have never been found.

So what do we have to support the theory that she never took the keys? DV of course reckons that she didn't take the keys, but what actual evidence is there to support his claims?

I will answer this with two questions What factual evidence (not msm reports or opinions of authors)is there to state how many sets of keys there was to 37SR ? and If only one set where and how did police get the keys to open the door of 37SR?

 

[Cherwell]

I will ask why she wouldn't have taken the keys.
If she made up the viewing appointment, surely she would take the keys to add verisimilitude.
The keys wouldn't have been needed by anyone else while she was out as they thought she was going there.

We keep saying keys plural, but might there have been only one key? A single Yale type key was quite common in the 80s (although I can't speak for London, where people may have been more security-conscious then). If there was only a Yale key, the police could easily have gained access without it.

 

[WiseOwl]

I will answer this with two questions What factual evidence (not msm reports or opinions of authors)is there to state how many sets of keys there was to 37SR ? and If only one set where and how did police get the keys to open the door of 37SR?

Well, first of all DV in his book spoke to Martin Sturgis, a senior partner in the Sturgis business at the time of Suzy's disappearance. DV asks MS how many sets of keys would an office have for a property and his answer is one. He states it would be unusual to have two, because two sets would of been difficult to keep track of, and sometimes keys go missing. One set would always suffice. DV then asks him if there were two sets of keys, would they have been held seperately or together? MS replies that they would have been held together, on the same bunch, on the same key board (DV book pages 144 - 145).

So that information comes from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

As for how did police get the keys to open the door of 37SR, well we don't know if they did use keys or if they broke into the property. I can't find anywhere that states it was one or the other. The only mention of going to 37SR in AS book is on page 10, when it states that 'two plainclothes detectives were immediately sent to enter and search 37SR, and nothing of apparent relevance was found.' I guess 'to enter and search' could suggest breaking in, but there is nothing definite to say that is what they did.

The other point about the keys is that whoever owned the property would have a set of keys as well. So it's possible that either the police, or MG, would have contacted the owner to get the keys to 37SR. However, i haven't seen it stated anywhere that is what happened.

 

[WestLondoner]

DV is right to focus on this IMO. There's a certain amount of assumption and inconsistency in either account re the keys.

It's not clear to me that the people who said they saw her take the keys actually saw this, or just assume she must have done because she'd need them. If she did take them, then you do have to wonder how the police got in. The owner was a helicopter pilot in the Middle East, which is four hours ahead. If the only keys had vanished along with SJL, then somebody from Sturgis would have had to phone him, catch him on a reachable number at 11pm local time possibly waking him up, explain that Sturgis had lost his keys, and could he please phone whatever neighbour has the spare set and get them to hand them to the police. Alternatively, nobody bothered, the police just broke his door down and somehow it got repaired. Nobody mentioned any of this at the time nor does anyone now recall any of this having to happen. The detective whom DV and his assistant met conceded he didn't know where they got the keys. Furthermore, if SJL did take the keys and did go to 37SR, why didn't she use them to go inside (fingerprint evidence says she didn't), and why did HR later claim to have heard people leaving?

Arguing that she did take them is people saying she did, and witnesses claiming to have seen her outside the house with them. You are then back to wondering who got in how. DV spoke to the two officers who went there first and they reckon they didn't go in till next day. If she was seen outside 37SR with the keys then you have to dismiss the 123SR sighting as well because WJ's account implies that SJL was never at 37SR.

Another anomaly is that the police broke down the door of her own flat even though they had PL with them and were in contact with her family. Surely her parents had a spare key to her flat? If not, then it tells you the police weren't shy about busting doors down if they had to. So if they didn't have the 37 SR keys, they'd surely have just bust into there like they did into her flat.

I would dismiss the idea that there was one crummy Yale lock on the front door of 37SR. I moved to London in 1988 and you flat-out could not get insurance on your house contents without three bar mortise locks or whatever they're called on every door. If all you had was a Yale, no insurer would even quote.

 

[RichardKimble]

I know it's but speculation and best not to really, but if the owner was in the middle East and a Helicopter pilot would he not employ a house cleaner who would have had a spare key, although this is never mentioned it could be one possibility for another set to gain entry, just putting it out there.

 

[WiseOwl]

DV is right to focus on this IMO. There's a certain amount of assumption and inconsistency in either account re the keys.

It's not clear to me that the people who said they saw her take the keys actually saw this, or just assume she must have done because she'd need them. If she did take them, then you do have to wonder how the police got in. The owner was a helicopter pilot in the Middle East, which is four hours ahead. If the only keys had vanished along with SJL, then somebody from Sturgis would have had to phone him, catch him on a reachable number at 11pm local time possibly waking him up, explain that Sturgis had lost his keys, and could he please phone whatever neighbour has the spare set and get them to hand them to the police. Alternatively, nobody bothered, the police just broke his door down and somehow it got repaired. Nobody mentioned any of this at the time nor does anyone now recall any of this having to happen. The detective whom DV and his assistant met conceded he didn't know where they got the keys. Furthermore, if SJL did take the keys and did go to 37SR, why didn't she use them to go inside (fingerprint evidence says she didn't), and why did HR later claim to have heard people leaving?

Arguing that she did take them is people saying she did, and witnesses claiming to have seen her outside the house with them. You are then back to wondering who got in how. DV spoke to the two officers who went there first and they reckon they didn't go in till next day. If she was seen outside 37SR with the keys then you have to dismiss the 123SR sighting as well because WJ's account implies that SJL was never at 37SR.

Another anomaly is that the police broke down the door of her own flat even though they had PL with them and were in contact with her family. Surely her parents had a spare key to her flat? If not, then it tells you the police weren't shy about busting doors down if they had to. So if they didn't have the 37 SR keys, they'd surely have just bust into there like they did into her flat.

I would dismiss the idea that there was one crummy Yale lock on the front door of 37SR. I moved to London in 1988 and you flat-out could not get insurance on your house contents without three bar mortise locks or whatever they're called on every door. If all you had was a Yale, no insurer would even quote.

DV had the perfect opportunity to ask MG about the keys, because he interviewed him twice. All he had to do was to ask him if he saw Suzy go behind his desk and take the keys to 37SR, but for some reason he failed to do this.

IMO, he avoided this question because if MG had answered 'yes' it would have put an end to DV's theory that Suzy didn't take the keys. OR maybe he did ask the question, got an answer he didn't like and then omitted it from his book?

 

[WestLondoner]

I know it's but speculation and best not to really, but if the owner was in the middle East and a Helicopter pilot would he not employ a house cleaner who would have had a spare key, although this is never mentioned it could be one possibility for another set to gain entry, just putting it out there.

Perhaps but surely we'd know about this.

 

[su5ie]

The above answers are excellent . It poses the question as to why it has never been clearly stated about how police got into 37SR surely this would clear up a lot of speculation regarding the appointment in work diary and a Mr Kipper and offer solutions to conflicting witness statements after 12.40 . How could wj be right if neighbour to 37 is also right as WestLondoner pointed out .IF Sturgis staff only assumed she took the keys based on diary entry could they also not be assuming time she left office or possibly hiding something and would did this not open a window for new witnesses . hypothetically if a witness seen suzy at 11 am would they assume that's not relevant as suzy was in the office after that .

 

[espirtu pampa]

Where I live (Belgium) police will call a locksmith to open and repair if necessary.
Of course in case fire, firemen will break the door.

Sometimes their would be a bailiff when the occupant would not have paid their income taxes so 2 policemen one superior wearing his cap with scramble eggs and white gloves , the bailiff and the locksmith the latter is te driver. And this every other year. It was great to look at .

 

[su5ie]

Perhaps but surely we'd know about this.

Maybe there was a cleaner and it wasn't reported as it didn't suit the agenda or narrative of whoever was making money on the back of publics interest in the case and also police could have entered through a window we assume they used a door entry

sorry now to be an antagonist but if no fingerprints were found of suzy's at 37SR should the house and the reports of precieved sightings be irrelevant to the investigation 38 years on and narrative be that she took the keys as an excuse and Wendy is the only witness to take seriously as she was looking out her kitchen window and had somewhere to go so is it safe to assume she knew the correct time.

 

[WiseOwl]

The above answers are excellent . It poses the question as to why it has never been clearly stated about how police got into 37SR surely this would clear up a lot of speculation regarding the appointment in work diary and a Mr Kipper and offer solutions to conflicting witness statements after 12.40 . How could wj be right if neighbour to 37 is also right as WestLondoner pointed out .IF Sturgis staff only assumed she took the keys based on diary entry could they also not be assuming time she left office or possibly hiding something and would did this not open a window for new witnesses . hypothetically if a witness seen suzy at 11 am would they assume that's not relevant as suzy was in the office after that .

DSI Carter stated in October 1986 that the keys to 37SR were still missing, so if Suzy didn't take them that day what on earth happened to them? Vanished into thin air like Suzy with no real explanation perhaps?

 

[WiseOwl]

Perhaps but surely we'd know about this.

But how would we know about this? We haven't even got a bona fide answer to the keys to the property even now, 38 years later. I doubt very much we would be privy to info such as a cleaner holding a key to the property!

 

[RichardKimble]

Perhaps but surely we'd know about this.

Yes and no so much is unknown.