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

[Mads15]

Thinking about these calls to the pub the afternoon SJL disappeared, both are intriguing. The one from the supposed police officer makes no sense because why would they get involved in a found cheque book; so I tend to think this was from the killer checking when and where she was expected.

The one from the woman is really interesting because this was apparently from a "Sarah" asking that SJL be kept there until she herself arrived. This was looked into at the time and SJL apparently did not know any Sarah. Could SJL have been meeting a married man that day, whose wife's name was Sarah? Thus SJL knows the man who has edged out AL (and others) is married, and she knows his wife's name is Sarah, and Sarah has worked out who SJL is and where she will be, and Sarah intends to go there and confront her husband's mistress. SJL won't be keen to meet Sarah, neither will her diary contain Sarah's phone number.

Did not AS indicate that SJL had become involved with a married man?

On the Lolly True Crime website (The Suzy Lamplugh Puzzle Part Two), the blogger states she did have a friend called Sarah. Worth noting I guess -
‘Suzy attends a party for her friend’s 21st Birthday near Dorking in Surrey. She’s at work at Sturgis and Sons in the morning, until lunchtime approximately, and later in the evening, about 5pm, is picked up by close friend Sarah, at Suzy’s flat in Disraeli Road, Putney.

She plans to stay the night with Sarah’s parents and seems to have really enjoyed herself at the party, “looking resplendent’ in a new dress. Her friend, celebrating her 21st, is from the same circle of friends and is also an estate agent. Adam is not with Suzy at the party.’

 

[WestLondoner]

Maybe what I recalled was that the only Sarah she knew had made no such call?

 

[WiseOwl]

As you say DV worked this out because he did what every re-investigation should have done. Ignore what's gone before and start from the beginning.
You've made things very clear, the disagreement with MG and seeing MG & SF go out to lunch must have made SJL very angry.
We're all assuming that she had something very important to attend to during her lunch break, this may be so, however, she may have decided to spite MG and go anyway.
If its the latter, then the most likely destination would be the PoW to collect her things, it was the last call she made (or received) was from someone at the PoW.
On this basis its not unreasonable to conclude that's where she went and following DV's advise "just follow the timeline" is where I concluded she was going.
As I've said before I think we have three possible options:

1. SJL went to the PoW and actually made it into the pub.
2. SJL never made the PoW and was abducted when she got to her car.
3. SJL actually had an important appointment and met an unknown male.

Maybe we should have a vote and see which is the most likely?

Out of the options you've given, 3 is the most likely for me.

I have always thought that Suzy had arranged to meet someone at lunchtime that Monday, it was important for her to meet this person because as we know the office was short-staffed that day and she probably wouldn't have had a lunch break except to keep this appointment.

The problem is we know very little of her associates from that time, and none that we can link a possible motive/opportunity to abduct Suzy.

We can all guess at the reason for someone to abduct and kill someone - sexual, financial, anger, jealousy etc., but who would have the opportunity on that Monday afternoon to commit such a crime?

Such a pity the police threw all their eggs in one basket as regards Mr Kipper, they should really have looked at lot more closely at the people involved in Suzy's life.

 

[Terryb808]

Out of the options you've given, 3 is the most likely for me.

I have always thought that Suzy had arranged to meet someone at lunchtime that Monday, it was important for her to meet this person because as we know the office was short-staffed that day and she probably wouldn't have had a lunch break except to keep this appointment.

The problem is we know very little of her associates from that time, and none that we can link a possible motive/opportunity to abduct Suzy.

We can all guess at the reason for someone to abduct and kill someone - sexual, financial, anger, jealousy etc., but who would have the opportunity on that Monday afternoon to commit such a crime?

Such a pity the police threw all their eggs in one basket as regards Mr Kipper, they should really have looked at lot more closely at the people involved in Suzy's life.

You make some good points, SJL went out with the intention of being missing for a short period of time (leaving all behind except her car keys & purse). If she planned to meet someone important she'd have known the meeting would not be a very quick 15 minutes.
To have spent from approx. 1.00pm to 2.45pm (when BW spotted her) with this mystery man would mean he must have been someone special. I think you're right about meeting someone, but I think she intended it to be a quick 15 minutes to say "look I'm not interested, I've met my perfect man".
I don't think it was necessarily romance related, more a business venture she had suddenly decided was not for her, depending on how critical her involvement was to its success, this could have triggered a very angry reaction.
There's one man who fits this scenario, he knew SJL well and was an acquaintance for several years before she disappeared, he only featured once in the Stephen book and never in any subsequent publication. Also, no TV documentary even mentions him.
I'll leave you all to work out who he is.

 

[Pinkizzy]

If pest control is called to the pub on a regular basis, don't you think the person would investigate the source/cause of the blowflies? If the source is the rubble, I guess someone has nosed around it already.

 

[WiseOwl]

Thinking about these calls to the pub the afternoon SJL disappeared, both are intriguing. The one from the supposed police officer makes no sense because why would they get involved in a found cheque book; so I tend to think this was from the killer checking when and where she was expected.

The one from the woman is really interesting because this was apparently from a "Sarah" asking that SJL be kept there until she herself arrived. This was looked into at the time and SJL apparently did not know any Sarah. Could SJL have been meeting a married man that day, whose wife's name was Sarah? Thus SJL knows the man who has edged out AL (and others) is married, and she knows his wife's name is Sarah, and Sarah has worked out who SJL is and where she will be, and Sarah intends to go there and confront her husband's mistress. SJL won't be keen to meet Sarah, neither will her diary contain Sarah's phone number.

Did not AS indicate that SJL had become involved with a married man?

Assuming that the calls did happen and that CV is not getting confused, then both of the calls are very odd.

I think if a woman did phone the pub that afternoon asking for Suzy, then how would they know Suzy had lost her chequebook and would be going to the pub? Although Suzy might have mentioned losing her chequebook to her work colleagues that morning it doesn't appear she mentioned going to the pub at lunchtime (if that is where she ended up).

The only person who, as far as we know, knew Suzy was going to go to the pub to collect her things was CV.

The only other scenario I can think of is this:

If Suzy did meet someone when she left work at 12.40, could they have been part of a couple? Let's say she had arranged to meet a man at lunchtime and told him she had to pop to the pub to collect her things. Of course, this meeting with the unknown man ended badly for Suzy and she didn't make it to the pub. So if he was part of a couple could he have got his partner to phone the pub with the ruse of telling CV to keep Suzy there?

Then again, why bother phoning the pub at all? It could possibly have drawn attention to themselves. Maybe they panicked after Suzy had mentioned she was going to the pub so they felt it was necessary to phone the pub with some excuse?

I wonder if the police ever checked to see if this call was actually made to the pub that afternoon? My guess is probably not.

 

[WestLondoner]

Pest control may be called there routinely simply to keep the rats and the 'roaches in order. It's not clear how often they would have scrambled around under the floor, but they would presumably have contaminated the scene by doing that.

I get the impression that the blowfly thing would have been and gone quite quickly. Flies breed in the summer I think, so by the autumn they'd be gone, and by the following spring, there'd be nothing of interest to them.

It is still worth searching I'd say. It would take 10 minutes to disprove the DV theory and wouldn't involve dredging any canals...it needn't spell curtains for DV's book either - he'd need to add an appendix outlining the results and what he now thinks, which would be enough to get some people to buy it. Being probably wrong hasn't harmed Berry-Dee's book sales....

 

[WestLondoner]

I think if a woman did phone the pub that afternoon asking for Suzy, then how would they know Suzy had lost her chequebook and would be going to the pub?

I can't fathom this either. She wasn't going to tell her colleagues because getting away at all depended on their not knowing this was a personal errand.

this meeting with the unknown man ended badly for Suzy and she didn't make it to the pub. So if he was part of a couple could he have got his partner to phone the pub

It's still hard to fathom. She would have to tell a man she's going to the pub before this meeting. This man somehow (no mobile phones) then tells his partner / GF / wife - with whom he's meeting SJL - that SJL's going to the pub, but the woman doesn't herself go. He goes. Later she phones the pub to find out when SJL is expected, but doesn't mention her man. This latter has meanwhile abducted / killed her.

Then again, why bother phoning the pub at all?

Well quite. Unless the woman was the wife of the abductor, and somehow overheard or listened in on their plans to meet at the pub. She concludes possibly accurately that SJL is having an affair with her bloke, she calls the pub to find out when SJL's expected. She then says "keep her there" intending not to murder her, but to confront her. SJL never makes it there, so the pub never calls, presumably because she has been intercepted by the abductor.

All this conjecture rests on the information about the fact, time and content of the calls being accurate. For myself, just as I think the Shorrolds sightings are actually MG and SF first at the house and then looking around for her car somewhere nearby in Shorrolds, I also think the "policeman" who called the pub did so on a different day. A minor error of recollection in each case would admit a simple, obvious, better explanation. In fact, if that wasn't MG and SF who were sighted at Shorrolds and if the police did not call the pub, that in itself would be odd. Why is it that all these witnesses supposedly noticed SJL and Kipper acting unremarkably at Shorrolds Road, and why did nobody then notice SF and MG making a lot more noise? If the police didn't follow up with the pub, why not?

 

[WiseOwl]

I can't fathom this either. She wasn't going to tell her colleagues because getting away at all depended on their not knowing this was a personal errand.


It's still hard to fathom. She would have to tell a man she's going to the pub before this meeting. This man somehow (no mobile phones) then tells his partner / GF / wife - with whom he's meeting SJL - that SJL's going to the pub, but the woman doesn't herself go. He goes. Later she phones the pub to find out when SJL is expected, but doesn't mention her man. This latter has meanwhile abducted / killed her.


Well quite. Unless the woman was the wife of the abductor, and somehow overheard or listened in on their plans to meet at the pub. She concludes possibly accurately that SJL is having an affair with her bloke, she calls the pub to find out when SJL's expected. She then says "keep her there" intending not to murder her, but to confront her. SJL never makes it there, so the pub never calls, presumably because she has been intercepted by the abductor.

All this conjecture rests on the information about the fact, time and content of the calls being accurate. For myself, just as I think the Shorrolds sightings are actually MG and SF first at the house and then looking around for her car somewhere nearby in Shorrolds, I also think the "policeman" who called the pub did so on a different day. A minor error of recollection in each case would admit a simple, obvious, better explanation. In fact, if that wasn't MG and SF who were sighted at Shorrolds and if the police did not call the pub, that in itself would be odd. Why is it that all these witnesses supposedly noticed SJL and Kipper acting unremarkably at Shorrolds Road, and why did nobody then notice SF and MG making a lot more noise? If the police didn't follow up with the pub, why not?

Well this is the main problem isn't it, why didn't the police follow any potential leads? If it didn't relate to Mr Kipper then they didn't want to know.

For instance, CV had 4 potential calls of interest that day:

1. The call from the bank.

2. The call from Suzy herself.

3. The call from 'Sarah'.

4. The call from the police officer.

So why didn't anyone from the police bother to investigate any of these calls to confirm if they did happen or not? You would of thought the calls from Suzy & 'Sarah' would have made them curious at the very least.

It's also hard to understand why no-one in Shorrolds Road heard MG banging at the door and shouting for Suzy, surely it would have attracted some attention?

Unless for some reason MG was lying about going to Shorrolds Road that afternoon? I don't know why he would but it's the only thing that would make sense.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Well this is the main problem isn't it, why didn't the police follow any potential leads? If it didn't relate to Mr Kipper then they didn't want to know.

For instance, CV had 4 potential calls of interest that day:

1. The call from the bank.

2. The call from Suzy herself.

3. The call from 'Sarah'.

4. The call from the police officer.

So why didn't anyone from the police bother to investigate any of these calls to confirm if they did happen or not? You would of thought the calls from Suzy & 'Sarah' would have made them curious at the very least.

It's also hard to understand why no-one in Shorrolds Road heard MG banging at the door and shouting for Suzy, surely it would have attracted some attention?

Unless for some reason MG was lying about going to Shorrolds Road that afternoon? I don't know why he would but it's the only thing that would make sense.

I guess MG went there but didn't bang on the door. You'd think that someone would check for the key to Shorrolds Rd after reading the entry in her diary.

 

[Terryb808]

Pest control may be called there routinely simply to keep the rats and the 'roaches in order. It's not clear how often they would have scrambled around under the floor, but they would presumably have contaminated the scene by doing that.

I get the impression that the blowfly thing would have been and gone quite quickly. Flies breed in the summer I think, so by the autumn they'd be gone, and by the following spring, there'd be nothing of interest to them.

It is still worth searching I'd say. It would take 10 minutes to disprove the DV theory and wouldn't involve dredging any canals...it needn't spell curtains for DV's book either - he'd need to add an appendix outlining the results and what he now thinks, which would be enough to get some people to buy it. Being probably wrong hasn't harmed Berry-Dee's book sales....

This is the point isn't it, 30 plus years of activity would surely have resulted in contamination of the area named as the void by DV. So why didn't DV have a prod about while he had the chance, I know securing a crime scene is important, but as you point out its contaminated anyway.
With care it could be examined to a point to prove that SJL is in the void or not and then involve the police if required.
Now that the PoW has changed hands the opportunity has been missed because the new owners will not want to get involved.

 

[WiseOwl]

I guess MG went there but didn't bang on the door. You'd think that someone would check for the key to Shorrolds Rd after reading the entry in her diary.

The Crimewatch reconstruction clearly shows MG knocking on the door at Shorrolds Road, and as he actually took part in this you would think his movements would be exactly the same as when he went to the house 3 months earlier.

As @WestLondoner said in his previous post it is strange that at least 4 witnesses noticed Suzy and an unknown man standing outside the house around 1.00, yet just a few hours later apparently no-one noticed MG and his companion knocking on the door and (presumably) shouting Suzy's name.

Very odd.

 

[Crusader21]

Some interesting points as always folks.

Say SL was heading to pub for her items. The Shorrolds diary cover / errand that DV speaks of.

As Terry indicted, did SL decide to fit in another brief liaison that lunchtime???

Perhaps meeting the male individual / or the couple, that she was pulling out of a business venture with? Finally meeting friends SL had been avoiding. Meeting a female that actually said she was due to meet SL that Monday lunchtime (until a nanny day off clash ruled out), with the meeting re-arranged to the Tuesday ....

Perhaps this other intended, very brief meet-up was to take place in a local property associated with the male half of this couple, who was in the building industry. A house in and around Stevenge Rd perhaps?

As someone said, if this meeting did not go well for SL, then her car may have then been driven and abandoned around the corner, a short distance away from the property by the male.

Might this explain two calls to the pub that afternoon from a male and female?

Also very odd that the female who helped with initial fundraising for the SL Trust, who herself went on to become a bit of a tv celeb, has never seemingly spoken publically regarding her close friendship of a few years with one of Britain's most mysterious disappearing persons?! Especially when she intially, had been due to meet that person the same time that she actually disppeared?!

As someone else said, if only the police had of looked more closely at people in SLs life ......

 

[Terryb808]

Some interesting points as always folks.

Say SL was heading to pub for her items. The Shorrolds diary cover / errand that DV speaks of.

As Terry indicted, did SL decide to fit in another brief liaison that lunchtime???

Perhaps meeting the male individual / or the couple, that she was pulling out of a business venture with? Finally meeting friends SL had been avoiding. Meeting a female that actually said she was due to meet SL that Monday lunchtime (until a nanny day off clash ruled out), with the meeting re-arranged to the Tuesday ....

Perhaps this other intended, very brief meet-up was to take place in a local property associated with the male half of this couple, who was in the building industry. A house in and around Stevenge Rd perhaps?

As someone said, if this meeting did not go well for SL, then her car may have then been driven and abandoned around the corner, a short distance away from the property by the male.

Might this explain two calls to the pub that afternoon from a male and female?

Also very odd that the female who helped with initial fundraising for the SL Trust, who herself went on to become a bit of a tv celeb, has never seemingly spoken publically regarding her close friendship of a few years with one of Britain's most mysterious disappearing persons?! Especially when she intially, had been due to meet that person the same time that she actually disppeared?!

As someone else said, if only the police had of looked more closely at people in SLs life ......

Well said Crusader21, it's difficult if not impossible to direct attention to the people involved at the time without risking the thread being zapped. However, as you say these two have stayed well under the radar for 35 years, I believe the male would fit the Mr Kipper Identikit picture (but then so would hundreds of others) and a combination of male and female fits with CV account of the calls made to the PoW that afternoon
The previously arranged lunchtime appointment with these two was cancelled and rearranged for Tuesday, DV must have known this, however, he didn't feature an interview with either of them or the nanny, maybe he didn't have space in his book, or felt they were not involved.
You have to conclude that the police approach to this was poor from the start, being totally single minded and not investigating all leads fully is where this fell apart. They needed to take control and not let the family drive the investigation, after all, the police are the experts aren't they?
To move forward DV's narrative needs to be looked and proved correct or not, as has been said, it's not the end of his book, it just means that SJL is somewhere else, it also doesn't mean CV is not responsible.

 

[Crusader21]

Thanks Terry, as you say it is very odd that these two people featured nowhere in the DV book.

Close aquaintances of SL, due to meet SL that lunchtime, resceduled 24 hours later. Surely you'd have thought he'd have spoken to one, two or both of them?

And DV's obviously aware of their existance having stated that he (and his researcher), viewed and read (all) of the media on this case that's in the public domain ....

(Obviously) I hope this thread isn't pulled as in IMO, no forum rules have been broken, no names etc have been disclosed and those initialled, have previously featured in print in books etc on this case.

 

[WestLondoner]

So is the suggestion here that SJL scratched and postponed a previously-arranged lunchtime meeting, and instead went to retrieve her stuff?

And / or that she already had the Mr Kipper appointment in her diary as a cover for this meeting, and then repurposed it to be the cover for the trip to the pub?

With all the different conjectures about SJL, including the police theory, we're still left with the underlying conundrum. Who abducts a robust young woman in broad daylight, and how do they expect to get away with it?

Your best shot is clearly if whomever you're abducting knows you, so she trustingly gets into your car and you can thus "ambush" her, as it were. The obvious risk with this is that if she knows you and thinks you're legit, how do you know she hasn't left a trail, such as appointments, your name and number in her diary, and phone call records, that leads straight to you?

I can only see two ways past this. One is if you can get her to swallow a complete false name and persona, eg Mr Kipper - this is the possibility the police seem to have fallen for.

The other is to persuade her that it's somehow in her interests to call you by a code name, like Mr Kipper, in her diaries etc. So you are in there, but not identifiably so. This seems like a huge challenge, because while she might call you Mr Kipper in a work diary that others see, why would she need to keep you out of her personal diary, that nobody sees?

If those don't work, all that's left is to abduct only strangers...and we're back to square one.

 

[Crusader21]

So is the suggestion here that SJL scratched and postponed a previously-arranged lunchtime meeting, and instead went to retrieve her stuff?

No not quite. I was suggesting that ....

SL arranged that Monday morning, to head to the pub at lunchtime to pick up her things. She put the Kipper entry in to the diary as cover. Just as DV suggested.

Either via taking a phone call at Sturgis or through her own choice, did she (at the last minute), and as she had cover for heading out, decide to use her time out to also make a very quick call in to see someone else en route?

Someone with access to a property that day, close to where her car was eventually found around Stevenage Rd?

In that senario, SL would have parked outside and entered the property. Nothing of note for anyone really to notice and or report.

Meeting her end in that property, SL would have never made the PoW. Her car would then have been removed from the property by her assilant, and parked (conveniently) at a nearby Sturgis sign.

Others have also suggested the male (or indeed couple) that this 'last minute' rendezvous may have been with. And possible reasons why SL may have met with him / them.

Again there's also (as reported in the Stephens book) the info from the female half that there was to be a meet up that Monday lunchtime, which was switched to the Tuesday.

IMO the female stating that SL would have met her / them on any given lunchtime is odd, in the context of Sturgis lunchtime policy (quick sandwich, all hands on deck etc). To meet her / them (indeed anyone), wouldn't SL have needed (another) ruse as cover for leaving her office?

 

[Terryb808]

No not quite. I was suggesting that ....

SL arranged that Monday morning, to head to the pub at lunchtime to pick up her things. She put the Kipper entry in to the diary as cover. Just as DV suggested.

Either via taking a phone call at Sturgis or through her own choice, did she (at the last minute), and as she had cover for heading out, decide to use her time out to also make a very quick call in to see someone else en route?

Someone with access to a property that day, close to where her car was eventually found around Stevenage Rd?

In that senario, SL would have parked outside and entered the property. Nothing of note for anyone really to notice and or report.

Meeting her end in that property, SL would have never made the PoW. Her car would then have been removed from the property by her assilant, and parked (conveniently) at a nearby Sturgis sign.

Others have also suggested the male (or indeed couple) that this 'last minute' rendezvous may have been with. And possible reasons why SL may have met with him / them.

Again there's also (as reported in the Stephens book) the info from the female half that there was to be a meet up that Monday lunchtime, which was switched to the Tuesday.

IMO the female stating that SL would have met her / them on any given lunchtime is odd, in the context of Sturgis lunchtime policy (quick sandwich, all hands on deck etc). To meet her / them (indeed anyone), wouldn't SL have needed (another) ruse as cover for leaving her office?

Spot on, SJL was not allowed to see her mother that week for her birthday, so as you say meeting the couple for lunch anytime just doesn’t fit and sounds like a cover up?
Look at the timeline, she leaves at 12.40pm, enough time to get to the PoW and still meet someone else at 1.00pm (depending how close to the PoW the meet was).
For CV to be telling the truth SJL never got to the PoW and one of the calls was from the female person she was supposed to meet after collecting her things. The second call was from the assailant who abducted SJL, if the couple were not together that day, the female would not have known she was missing.

 

[Terryb808]

PS: we have enough theories on this, one of them just has to be right.
Crusader21’s makes sense, however, a nearby property which may have been empty and having building work done is worse case scenario.
I say this because the police supposedly searched all local properties and found nothing. So if this happened it’s almost impossible to locate the right one 35 years later.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Spot on, SJL was not allowed to see her mother that week for her birthday, so as you say meeting the couple for lunch anytime just doesn’t fit and sounds like a cover up?
Look at the timeline, she leaves at 12.40pm, enough time to get to the PoW and still meet someone else at 1.00pm (depending how close to the PoW the meet was).
For CV to be telling the truth SJL never got to the PoW and one of the calls was from the female person she was supposed to meet after collecting her things. The second call was from the assailant who abducted SJL, if the couple were not together that day, the female would not have known she was missing.

The female may have called Sturgis and the pub on her quest to find her. She probably knew that SL was collecting her things sometime on Monday (Sturgis staff knew she was collecting her stuff sometime that day)