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

Status
Not open for further replies.

WestLondoner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
419
Reaction score
848
To be fair, why would they co-operate? They either find nothing or they find the corpse of a famous missing person who has been decomposing under the dining space for 35 years. There's either no benefit or an utter PR disaster.
 

Terryb808

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
521
Reaction score
820
To be fair, why would they co-operate? They either find nothing or they find the corpse of a famous missing person who has been decomposing under the dining space for 35 years. There's either no benefit or an utter PR disaster.
Cynical head on again, just wondered how hard DV has tried to get them to cooperate. If nothing is found it’s probably the end for his book, like you I think that you’d never hide a body in the cellar of the pub you’re working in.
 

Pinkizzy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
2,340
Cynical head on again, just wondered how hard DV has tried to get them to cooperate. If nothing is found it’s probably the end for his book, like you I think that you’d never hide a body in the cellar of the pub you’re working in.
Did the owner of the pub pay for a survey before they bought it? Its worth millions, isn't it?
 

WiseOwl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
856
Reaction score
6,054
There is no way the police or the pub owners will dig up the cellar based on DV's theory.

I've said it before but why would CV murder Suzy? What would his motive be? And if it was an accidental death, why would CV not call the emergency services? Again, what would his motive be?

DV hasn't even proved that CV was alone that day or that the pub was closed.

In fact CV even said in the book that the pub was open that day, and you would presume the owners would want it open asap after the stock take and let's not forget that it was CV's first day as acting landlord.

Quite a first day then, murdering someone before the pub opened, burying them in the cellar, finding where they had parked their car and then driving it back to Fulham. Oh yes, and making his way back to Putney as well.

All in a days work for an acting landlord of the Prince of Wales pub!
 

WestLondoner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
419
Reaction score
848
Let's also not forget that CV was from oop North, which is where DV found him. He would not have been familiar with the locale so he was doing well to dump the car where he did.
 

Terryb808

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
521
Reaction score
820
LSW pointed out that CV did his initial training at the PoW, that was several weeks. In that time he’d know the area and Stevenage Road as the PoW was (and maybe still is) popular with Fulham supporters.
DV describes the void as being 3 fit in height, I’m sure you could establish that it contains a body without digging up the cellar.
It would close the whole PoW thing if you did this.
 

jimbob5

Former Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
128
Reaction score
696
There is no way the police or the pub owners will dig up the cellar based on DV's theory.

I've said it before but why would CV murder Suzy? What would his motive be? And if it was an accidental death, why would CV not call the emergency services? Again, what would his motive be?

DV hasn't even proved that CV was alone that day or that the pub was closed.

In fact CV even said in the book that the pub was open that day, and you would presume the owners would want it open asap after the stock take and let's not forget that it was CV's first day as acting landlord.

Quite a first day then, murdering someone before the pub opened, burying them in the cellar, finding where they had parked their car and then driving it back to Fulham. Oh yes, and making his way back to Putney as well.

All in a days work for an acting landlord of the Prince of Wales pub!

I don't think he is a good candidate-the idea of her corpse lying in the pub undiscovered since 1986 without some major renovation having been done to bury her deep is highly far-fetched. The only motive would be him trying it on with her, then losing it when she rebuffed him.
 

Pinkizzy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
2,340
LSW pointed out that CV did his initial training at the PoW, that was several weeks. In that time he’d know the area and Stevenage Road as the PoW was (and maybe still is) popular with Fulham supporters.
DV describes the void as being 3 fit in height, I’m sure you could establish that it contains a body without digging up the cellar.
It would close the whole PoW thing if you did this.
All you need is a cadaver dog to search the area
 

WestLondoner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
419
Reaction score
848
I don't think he is a good candidate-the idea of her corpse lying in the pub undiscovered since 1986 without some major renovation having been done to bury her deep is highly far-fetched. The only motive would be him trying it on with her, then losing it when she rebuffed him.

According to DV's conversation with the PoW staffer, pest control guys regularly access the underfloor area, so it's not actually untouched since 1986 anyway. Furthermore,

In 2007, during a purely cosmetic makeover, the stage area had been lowered from above, and the floor put back to its original height, before being tiled over again. But the pile of rubbish remained untouched beneath the floor

Um, did it? They changed the height of part of the floor and nobody noticed anything odd underneath?
 
Last edited:

WestLondoner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
419
Reaction score
848
The bit in DV's interviews with CV that intrigues me is his reaction when he was told DV had been in touch with his ex. He was pretty aghast. This rather says that if something happened she was somehow involved as a witness at least. Her own reaction to being contacted was pretty shocked too.

It does make you wonder about the timeliness if CV and his ex somehow jointly disposed of a body.
 

WiseOwl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
856
Reaction score
6,054
The bit in DV's interviews with CV that intrigues me is his reaction when he was told DV had been in touch with his ex. He was pretty aghast. This rather says that if something happened she was somehow involved as a witness at least. Her own reaction to being contacted was pretty shocked too.

It does make you wonder about the timeliness if CV and his ex somehow jointly disposed of a body.

The problem with DV's book is that a few people come across as being suspicious or acting strangely.

As you say both CV and his ex both gave shocked reactions, her when she was contacted and CV when he knew DV had spoke to his ex.

Then there is AL, his reaction was the most surprising of all when DV interviewed him. He denied going to the restaurant or pub that Friday night yet originally he said he had gone with Suzy to both. Then he denied Suzy had lost her things at the pub, 'it never happened' he said. Finally he stormed out of the interview, sending cups and saucers flying. So what was it that DV said that upset him and caused him to react that way?

Next we have MG. He came across as being evasive about the question of the keys to Shorrolds Road and the fact that no-one apparently told the police they were the original keys when they let themselves in on the Tuesday morning. You would think that as manager of the office he would know this, particularly as he participated in the Crimewatch show in October '86. I get the impression that he did know about the keys but for some reason held this information back from the police.

Another one is NB, Suzy's flatmate. In the interview with him he tells DV that he didn't see Suzy at all on the Sunday evening, yet originally he had stated that they had stayed up chatting when she had returned from windsurfing. You would have thought that last evening with Suzy was something he would of remembered bearing in mind what happened the following day.

I'm not sure if DV meant these people to look suspicious but that's how it came across in the book.
 

Pinkizzy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
2,340
The problem with DV's book is that a few people come across as being suspicious or acting strangely.

As you say both CV and his ex both gave shocked reactions, her when she was contacted and CV when he knew DV had spoke to his ex.

Then there is AL, his reaction was the most surprising of all when DV interviewed him. He denied going to the restaurant or pub that Friday night yet originally he said he had gone with Suzy to both. Then he denied Suzy had lost her things at the pub, 'it never happened' he said. Finally he stormed out of the interview, sending cups and saucers flying. So what was it that DV said that upset him and caused him to react that way?

Next we have MG. He came across as being evasive about the question of the keys to Shorrolds Road and the fact that no-one apparently told the police they were the original keys when they let themselves in on the Tuesday morning. You would think that as manager of the office he would know this, particularly as he participated in the Crimewatch show in October '86. I get the impression that he did know about the keys but for some reason held this information back from the police.

Another one is NB, Suzy's flatmate. In the interview with him he tells DV that he didn't see Suzy at all on the Sunday evening, yet originally he had stated that they had stayed up chatting when she had returned from windsurfing. You would have thought that last evening with Suzy was something he would of remembered bearing in mind what happened the following day.

I'm not sure if DV meant these people to look suspicious but that's how it came across in the book.
Its a definite 'who done it', isn't it? I guess its his way of avoiding legal action.
 

WestLondoner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
419
Reaction score
848
I think AL's reaction is explicable if the questions DV was posing were touching on stuff he'd rather forget about SJL and her hinted-at but undisclosed other life. The more I think about it, the more it seems obvious that is where the solution lies (but that it's clearly now too late to get there).

All we really know about this aspect of her is that it was racy enough for the family to want it all downplayed, and indeed to withdraw support for AS' book when it looked like coming up. I think their comment was "We do not recognise this portrait of our daughter".

Of course, if SJL did indeed have a collection of mystery men in her life, this was acutely relevant to solving the case. It doesn't look like she was forcibly abducted by a stranger so the assumption is that it was someone she knew. The male coterie is the obvious group among whom to look for a culprit.

But at the same time, disclosing this could have been a massive setback to the investigation. At that point, the news story changes from 'nice middle class girl disappears' to 'slapper murdered'. One senses that the Lamplughs would actually have preferred the case not to be solved at all than to have this mystery life exposed and have this be the story.

And maybe AL feels the same. Assuming as I think we can that he was genuinely fond of her, I can't think why he'd welcome anything coming out about her now that would be seen as discreditable. She's remembered as a mystery whose disappearance created something good, the trust in her name. She is not remembered as a trollop who had it coming.

It is perhaps analogous to the situation 30 or 40 years ago when some famous chap would die, it would then emerge that he was gay, and the family would deny it or say could we please not talk about it. Nowadays nobody cares, but back then it was discreditable.
 

Konstantin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
141
Reaction score
459
The problem with DV's book is that a few people come across as being suspicious or acting strangely.

As you say both CV and his ex both gave shocked reactions, her when she was contacted and CV when he knew DV had spoke to his ex.

Then there is AL, his reaction was the most surprising of all when DV interviewed him. He denied going to the restaurant or pub that Friday night yet originally he said he had gone with Suzy to both. Then he denied Suzy had lost her things at the pub, 'it never happened' he said. Finally he stormed out of the interview, sending cups and saucers flying. So what was it that DV said that upset him and caused him to react that way?

Next we have MG. He came across as being evasive about the question of the keys to Shorrolds Road and the fact that no-one apparently told the police they were the original keys when they let themselves in on the Tuesday morning. You would think that as manager of the office he would know this, particularly as he participated in the Crimewatch show in October '86. I get the impression that he did know about the keys but for some reason held this information back from the police.

Another one is NB, Suzy's flatmate. In the interview with him he tells DV that he didn't see Suzy at all on the Sunday evening, yet originally he had stated that they had stayed up chatting when she had returned from windsurfing. You would have thought that last evening with Suzy was something he would of remembered bearing in mind what happened the following day.

I'm not sure if DV meant these people to look suspicious but that's how it came across in the book.

AL's reaction is the oddest one to me. Why would he deny ever going to the pub and why insist that it never happened that SJL lost her stuff there the night or two nights before? Why is that an emotional touchpoint and why after all this time?

It does not look like the chequebook and diary going missing there is a myth, because it's discussed in various sources, and the police don't deny that this was the case. So what does he mean, it never happened? Is he hinting that there is another explanation, where the items ended up at the pub but were not lost there? He didnt know SJL for very long and it really didnt seem like she was that close to him or he was the love of her life, and in any case so much time has passed that while you'd expect some emotion over such a shocking event, you would not expect him to be so touchy over something apparently so trivial.

CV being upset about his ex might be that they just had bad blood or fought over the story of what happened regarding SJL's things even if it wasnt suspicious. his worry seems to be that she might tell a different story to DV than he did.
 

Konstantin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
141
Reaction score
459
To add re MG, maybe he has some idea of what SJL was up to that lunchtime and didnt let on at the time, because he assumed that SJL would just turn up safe and well. Her missing presumed murdered was not what he expected. And then the story ran for so long that he couldnt really admit to anything without looking suspicious.

Could he have just been covering for SJL having either known or more likely assumed she'd nipped out somewhere and he didnt want to get her into trouble, or himself into trouble.
 

Pinkizzy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
2,340
I'm starting to doubt CVs guilt. He may have confused the times and identity of the callers but I guess he didn't have anything to do with SLs disappearance and neither did his ex wife.
 

Pinkizzy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
2,340
I guess the truth about SLs secret life should be revealed and AL should explain exactly what happened in Mossops that Friday night.
 

Crusader21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2021
Messages
293
Reaction score
547
I think AL's reaction is explicable if the questions DV was posing were touching on stuff he'd rather forget about SJL and her hinted-at but undisclosed other life. The more I think about it, the more it seems obvious that is where the solution lies (but that it's clearly now too late to get there).

All we really know about this aspect of her is that it was racy enough for the family to want it all downplayed, and indeed to withdraw support for AS' book when it looked like coming up. I think their comment was "We do not recognise this portrait of our daughter".

Of course, if SJL did indeed have a collection of mystery men in her life, this was acutely relevant to solving the case. It doesn't look like she was forcibly abducted by a stranger so the assumption is that it was someone she knew. The male coterie is the obvious group among whom to look for a culprit.

But at the same time, disclosing this could have been a massive setback to the investigation. At that point, the news story changes from 'nice middle class girl disappears' to 'slapper murdered'. One senses that the Lamplughs would actually have preferred the case not to be solved at all than to have this mystery life exposed and have this be the story.

And maybe AL feels the same. Assuming as I think we can that he was genuinely fond of her, I can't think why he'd welcome anything coming out about her now that would be seen as discreditable. She's remembered as a mystery whose disappearance created something good, the trust in her name. She is not remembered as a trollop who had it coming.

It is perhaps analogous to the situation 30 or 40 years ago when some famous chap would die, it would then emerge that he was gay, and the family would deny it or say could we please not talk about it. Nowadays nobody cares, but back then it was discreditable.

Great post WL.

Just thinking about the Suzy Lamplugh Trust.

A national organisation that does very valuable work, employs many people now and is based on a beautiful, professional young woman disappearing (and being murdered) at the hands of a stalker.

If by some chance a new line of investigation was instigated looking at SL's 'darker side' and a possible murderer there.

Wouldnt this possibly threaten the very existance of the SLT? Let sleeping dogs lie...
 

WiseOwl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
856
Reaction score
6,054
I think AL's reaction is explicable if the questions DV was posing were touching on stuff he'd rather forget about SJL and her hinted-at but undisclosed other life. The more I think about it, the more it seems obvious that is where the solution lies (but that it's clearly now too late to get there).

All we really know about this aspect of her is that it was racy enough for the family to want it all downplayed, and indeed to withdraw support for AS' book when it looked like coming up. I think their comment was "We do not recognise this portrait of our daughter".

Of course, if SJL did indeed have a collection of mystery men in her life, this was acutely relevant to solving the case. It doesn't look like she was forcibly abducted by a stranger so the assumption is that it was someone she knew. The male coterie is the obvious group among whom to look for a culprit.

But at the same time, disclosing this could have been a massive setback to the investigation. At that point, the news story changes from 'nice middle class girl disappears' to 'slapper murdered'. One senses that the Lamplughs would actually have preferred the case not to be solved at all than to have this mystery life exposed and have this be the story.

And maybe AL feels the same. Assuming as I think we can that he was genuinely fond of her, I can't think why he'd welcome anything coming out about her now that would be seen as discreditable. She's remembered as a mystery whose disappearance created something good, the trust in her name. She is not remembered as a trollop who had it coming.

It is perhaps analogous to the situation 30 or 40 years ago when some famous chap would die, it would then emerge that he was gay, and the family would deny it or say could we please not talk about it. Nowadays nobody cares, but back then it was discreditable.

AL's reaction in the book still seems odd to me. The questions DV put to him were not hinting at Suzy's potential 'other life' but rather about the last time he saw Suzy, the weekend before she disappeared.

Now this might still be an upsetting memory for AL to remember, and rightly so. However, he did agree to be interviewed by DV and he must have known that potentially there was going to be some awkward or upsetting questions he would face.

If he felt this way (which his reaction to the questions seems to show), why put himself through it and agree to be interviewed in the first place? What sort of questions did he think DV would ask him?

This is JMOO of course but I do wonder if the following happened that weekend.

In an old documentary AL said the Friday night at Mossop's and then at the pub round the corner (presumably the Prince of Wales) had been a pleasant night out.

However, I do wonder if this actually was the case. As we know when AL was on holiday Suzy had apparently got herself a new boyfriend, so on this Friday night out did she tell him about this new man in her life, and the evening did not go as well as AL had said - maybe they had a disagreement and that's why they didn't go to the pub?

On the Saturday evening Suzy went to a party but AL wasn't invited (maybe because the new BF was there?), and on the Sunday Suzy went with her friends to Worthing that afternoon. AL did turn up but had to make his own way there and back. So that Saturday and Sunday it doesn't appear that Suzy wanted to be in AL's company much at all.

There was supposed to be a phone call that night around 10.15, but AL said he couldn't remember if Suzy called him or he had called her. It was supposedly about meeting up with friends on Tuesday night, but how do we know this for sure? Suzy wasn't around to tell the story, so for all we know it could have been AL getting angry with her for snubbing him that weekend.

So did DV's interview with him bring this all back, that maybe things were not so fine-and-dandy between him and Suzy after all? Hence his reaction by storming out of the meeting with DV and Caroline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top