Suzy Lamplugh has not been seen since she left her office in Fulham at lunchtime on 28th July 1986. It seems highly unlikely now that she went to meet a buyer at 37 Shorrolds Road.
A negative review on Amazon, interested to see what you think of its points.....
'After reading the book I wrote a glowing 5-star review on Amazon, convinced the police had slipped up badly, jumped to conclusions then set off after a phantom called ‘Mr Kipper’. Sparking my interest in the case, I watched and re-watched the Oct ’86 Crimewatch reconstruction on Youtube. Which is when it became apparent there were crucial differences with the book. So who was right?
Comparing (A) a Crimewatch/police reconstruction 2-3 months after the event, using the actual witnesses, and (B) an investigation over 30 years later relying on people’s recollections for fresh insights, I have to say the former must be definitive. Here are some points which, I’m afraid, derail the author’s conclusions:
Key to No. 37 Shorrold Rd.
The cornerstone of the author’s case is that the key never left Suzy’s office, proving she didn’t go to the viewing, because there never was a Mr Kipper. And that the police used it next day during the search for her, to get into the property. But this has a fatal flaw - in the Crimewatch program the key was still missing - the policeman heading the investigation confirmed it had never been recovered. On that basis it seems pretty clear Suzy did take the key - but somehow the author ignores this. The staff went to viewings armed with a very large yellow key fob and a copy of the sale sheet, but the author’s theory requires Suzy, having carefully invented a viewing to provide cover, to then leave the office very conspicuously empty-handed - a dead giveaway in itself - and also to drive off in completely the opposite direction, nowhere near No.37. Which would be pretty boneheaded, and unthinkable for someone as bright as Suzy.
Next-door neighbour identifying Suzy
The author seems to establish, from a relative of the now-deceased neighbour at No.35, that Suzy was never positively identified by him - which he takes as further evidence she did not go to No.37. But Crimewatch shows what actually happened - at 1pm, hearing the front door of No.37 being closed, the neighbour looks up from his newspaper to see a man and a woman walk out onto the pavement. Which confirms that No.37 was visited, making it irrelevant whether the neighbour identified Suzy or not. It’s a reasonable assumption it was her - who else could it have been - a point the author does not address.
Other Shorrold Road sightings
Crimewatch show two more sightings: Suzy waiting alone on the doorstep at 12.50. Then about 1pm, Suzy outside on the pavement and a man standing in the road with a bottle of champagne. These three sightings at No.37 show Suzy did go there - but was not abducted there.
Most reliable sighting
Crimewatch introduce a friend of Suzy’s who saw her at 2.45pm, driving north through Fulham, talking to a man in the passenger seat. This friend knew Suzy very well and was 100% certain it was her. Despite spending huge amounts of time tracking down more doubtful witnesses, the author completely ignores this sighting, and does not mention it in his book.
The Prince of Wales pub
The author believes Suzy went straight from her office to the pub - anxious to retrieve her secret pocket diary, mislaid there the previous evening - and met her end there. Which is directly contradicted by the three sightings at No.37, and her friend seeing her at 2.45pm. Also, the pub had been open since midday - how would she come to grief with customers around? The person who told the author that Suzy rang him about collecting her diary also told him she never turned up. A point the author does not pursue.
All the evidence shows Suzy did go to Shorrold Road - a brief ‘viewing’ only for show - to ensure her story about meeting a customer there stayed watertight back at the office.
On Crimewatch the police stated the two knew each other, and all the evidence points to exactly that. Subsequently there were sightings of a man and woman arguing in that area and later arguing/fighting a mile away in and around Stevenage Road, where her car was later found.
Prior to publication of The Suzy Lamplugh Story in 1988, written with access to the police investigation and Suzy’s larger, more detailed, diaries there was fevered tabloid speculation about her ‘lifestyle’ - Faber & Faber rejected an offer of £250K from the News of the World for the serialisation rights. Having seen a draft, Diana Lamplugh took legal action to prevent it being published. When this failed, the author refusing to budge, she dissociated herself from it. But the disclosures in the book were only the tip of the iceberg. Amidst the controversy, the managing director of Faber & Faber maintained the author had actually been very responsible: - “He has left out some incredibly difficult stuff - material that would have been better suited to, let’s say, the News of the World than Faber & Faber.”
With no shortage of admirers, Suzy juggled suitors constantly and indulged herself to the full. But kept them in the dark about the stiff competition they faced in her hectic love life - frequent dumping being the order of the day to free up space for fresh contenders.
Consequently, in just that final weekend period there were a lot of men. First, she saw her boyfriend Adam on Fri night. Possibly somebody else at a Sat night party, from which Adam had been excluded. She saw him briefly Sun afternoon but then side-lined him again and that evening went to another man’s flat, from which she rang him for a brief chat. On Monday, next up was ‘Mr Kipper’ - so urgent she broke all the rules and invented the viewing at No.37. They then spent some hours talking, then arguing, and eventually fighting. But in him she overstepped the mark with the wrong man - and it finally caught up with her.'
Thanks for posting this comment, Iain. Comments are hugely rewarding as it's one of the few ways writers know that people are reading our stuff!
You have raised such an important general point about amateur investigators that I can see my way to a longer article which I will send out later on. On the specific points in this review, I am not convinced. It is too easy to accept a Crimewatch reconstruction as fact. But Crimewatch always worked closely with police, with officers appearing on each show. The Crimewatch film is the police film, and Diana Lamplugh was active even at that stage in managing Suzy's reputation. Towards the end of the review, the author strays into a spot of victim blaming. Suzy's lifestyle was perfectly 'normal' (as in typical) for working men and women in the 1980s in London and there is no evidence that she in any way contributed to her abduction.
This does not mean that I 100% accept David Videcette's conclusions either, but sometimes after the passing of decades, it is possible that people speak more openly. It is one of the major unsolved crimes of the last 50 years and those who knew Suzy must be haunted by it. I often find myself writing that only the killer really knows what happened, and that is even more so when there is no body. Something I try to do on Crime Guy is try to present the balanced facts and let readers like you decide for yourself. In the case of John Cannan I find it impossible. I think David Videcette does accurately track the way that lead was instigated by Diana Lamplugh and what he found stunned even me. I don't necessarily think Suzy went to the pub, and I'm not necessarily convinced that there only ever was a single key - it just seems a lot of expectation to put on one tiny piece of evidence. But David makes his case after months of professional investigation, as a former detective himself, and I am more likely to support him than an Amazon reviewer who just watched Crimewatch and chose to believe it all. I am looking at following the estate agency colleagues angle more closely because people quickly ruled her colleagues out. Why? She disappeared during working hours. Her colleague reported her missing far more quickly than average. (Claudia Lawrence's managers never reported her missing at all.) If there is a man with a motive, it is likely that a colleague will know something. Is that why she was reported missing so quickly? I haven't really seen anything about this case that identifies a proper suspect with a clear motive and opportunity, which in itself is highly unusual.
Apart from anything else, focusing on one possible suspect in the way Cannan has been linked to Suzy tends to shut out other options. Even if I am wrong and Cannan is the killer, why waste time pressuring one person who will never confess? If he really did kill Suzy, a better way to prove it is to find the body. If she was in a suitcase or plastic there might still be evidence to collect. What do you think?
Hi Paul, I forwarded the review to both see if it gave you thought on your own points and also for you to pick it apart, as you know the case intimately. For my own thoughts, I still tend to lean towards Cannan, although men like Steve Wright or a complete unknown I wouldnt rule out. I agree on the body point. If the claim about Canaan and the canal is true and even if not, I would rather have lent towards trying to drain it, at least then we'd know the claim is the rosetta stone or bunkum. UK police forces have drained lakes and water areas for much longer cold cases (like Moira Anderson and she disappeared in 1957). Or dug up many an area for older cold cases.
One of the things I really like about this research is that you come across people with such different theories about a case. So often I think I have found a coherent narrative that fits everything, and it takes hours or days to construct, and then someone else disputes key elements in just a few seconds. It's very much a hunches game in some ways. You've made me reconsider my own thoughts on Cannan. I find it frustrating that I can only say 'not Cannan' but I have no alternative name to suggest! I also think a random stranger is possible - that was basically my conclusion about Sophie Toscan du Plantier, which I looked at more closely last year. I was not aware of Moira Anderson - that really is a grim case - I will return to that later on. Only last summer an expensive water draining exercise was carried out for Claudia Lawrence. I guess draining a canal is harder than draining a small pond. Do you know if they ever sent divers in looking for Suzy? I remember from the various documentaries that the police never really took that sighting seriously. The CPS never entertained the Cannan theory. Here's one for the conspiracy theorists: isn't Cannan like Canal??? Riddle me that!
To add, re: timeline, on Friday she had a cut and highlights around Fulham Palace Road. According to Stephen. This is also a small detail but something to note on the timeline perhaps. Planning permission on the basement was being sought by an associate and friend of hers I believe. A new Estate Agency I believe. Did she get chatting or go for a drink to that end?
There was a lot of detail in her personal life that may have been relevant and seems forgotten or overlooked. The fact she had gone to a Saudi Arabian exhibition, (at Earls Court), a well known one, for example, pre its official opening, said her lodger in one article at the time. The previous flat mate who said she was rung up by mysterious people. Etc.
It would have been helpful if Videcette had referred to these source materials when he was interviewing them, to job memories which understandably would have dimmed after more than 30 years.
She was also due to see a man close to her Birthday in May but changed her mind. This was just the sort of thing that JC would have seen red about. Of course, if it had been him. Instead, she went to Wales with her cousin and family, as press articles show.
If such a busy office how was she able to take time off to do this? After work?
Videcette didn't unpack or address the fact that a woman or a man, possibly both, were almost certainly outside Shorrolds Rd at lunchtime on Monday.
If not Suzy who was the woman? Who were the couple? It's interesting that in one interview Videcette almost suggests he thinks someone (a woman) was there, not Suzy. Did the police ask all Estate Agents etc doing viewings that afternoon etc, to come forward?
It was thought at the time that Suzy hadn't been inside Shorrolds Road I think, so my feeling is, if there then this was an agreed pick up spot. Or the viewer said 'not my thing'.
The older style BMW outside Shorrolds
The police got about half way through checking re: the distinctive car that was parked there, but didn't fully check this lead out. Possibly a red herring but worth fully investigating. It's also interesting to note that a BMW was originally apparently reported to the pop up police station around Stevenage Road at the time but the details lost or misfiled.
The witnesses to the Shorrolds Road sightings
Does Videcette think one of them was a plant? He suggests that the ex cellar man he tries to visit in the book was being furtive and avoiding him. Interestingly there was also an Irish cellar man in the Prince of Wales back in 86, he also flags this in the book.
There were at least four witnesses who reported the Shorrolds Rd sightings fairly early on, at least one was very credible.
Stevenage Road witnesses
Two separate people plus reported a violently arguing couple in Stevenage Road. Jagoda also apparently saw a man with a deep tan, good looking and possibly carrying books and a suitcase.
The more interesting sighting was by 'James Galway' lookalike who was picked up by a taxi driver near Finlay St. 'Thank Christ you came along' 'That couple are having a right ruck'. Why was a geezer type middle aged man apparently scared by a rowing couple? Why didn't he and the taxi driver double back to see the woman was ok? Especially if really that disturbing to 'James Galway'.
The taxi driver didn't come forward again and this again would have been interesting for Videcette to explore.
Why was the passenger going only to Macdonalds down the road?
Barbara W
Barbara was very credible, she knew Suzy and was at least originally convinced 'it was her'. The police were diligent and went to her office and interviewed her colleagues. Yes, it WAS that Monday she was out at lunchtime, all agreed and diaries confirmed. It made sense that she was where she said she was at that time. Later it was thought BW MUST have been wrong. It being a Monday, well less likely Barbara would have confused it with another day.
SL herself
She wasn't just a 'modern' girl or a typical 80s girl as has been said. There was a lot more going on and she had a separate set of friends the 'Putney set' didn't know about. Not to judge her in any way but this needed to be looked at quite carefully as so often the clues are right there.
She said to an Uncle, as shown in the documentary 'The Man Who Killed Suzy Lamplugh' that someone was 'leaning on her' and she was apparently 'almost angry'. She was also keen to sell her flat, a few purchases had fallen through, she wanted to upgrade and had possibly agreed to a shared ownership arrangement where she allowed someone to use her address etc in return for a cash injection. She was going into a beauty business potentially with friends. Something came out later, uncovered by the journalist and writer Andrew Stephen. He'd wanted to keep it to himself but a later court case forced him to reveal private details he'd apparently uncovered. This really upset her parents. Some called this muck racking and prurient but what if the answer lay somehow within all this? Was she under pressure to raise money? Suddenly, quite fast? Did this mean she took action she might not have previously?
Sunday night before she went missing
Her current boyfriend emerged as her champion and was impressively steadfast in the glare of all the publicity. She had a new boyfriend, or date with a new man while her established boyfriend was on holiday, one known to the current boyfriend. He was very wealthy, this new man. Was he the person she saw on Sunday evening after leaving her parents about 9pm? His name in press articles etc at time. Was he her plus one at the 21st she attended on the Saturday night? NB: the last published photo of her. NB: I am sure he wasn't responsible, neither boyfriend in fact, but possibly one of many protecting her reputation, as perhaps they saw it, in doing this, did some IMPORTANT details in the timeline get lost? Whether her things went missing near the pub phone box on Friday or Sunday, what did it really matter? Maybe it DID really matter, that's the thing.
Sunday nights were also the nights she gave beauty treatments to the glamorous couple, (at least a couple of years earlier I believe) her friends at the time and the woman was someone she was apparently going into business with in the not too distant future. Which makes me think of the business arrangement she had with someone never confirmed or traced. Although John Cannan and some scheme possibly the most likely candidate.
Wendy
I think Videcette is right in that Wendy was mistaken about seeing the fiesta not long after 12 on the Monday. It being there later in the afternoon and possibly she was swiftly transferred against her will, hence shouting couple, 'yowl' heard by schoolboys etc, into a red sierra JC borrowed from the hostel inmate cook to get home to Birmingham.
Videcette
Surely he has more he can't share? On the temp pub landlord and wife perhaps? The fact he expected an immediate arrest tells us that, he's an ex policeman, he knows what's needed for this. He says he has a full dossier.
JC
I think he probably is the culprit for lots of reasons.
DV investigated the case for 3 years - he concludes that Suzy only left the office with purse and car keys....between 12.30 and 12.40 is the best guess ......her car was parked in Whittingstall Rd. But DV concludes that she left the office and turned right ......not left up to Whittingstall Rd where the car was allegedly parked by the colleague.....
Hello. I have just seen a documentary about this case. Could any one tell me if the diary and cheque book were left at pub the day before or if they went missing the day before from somewhere else and then turned up at the pub. These possessions could of been in the hands of her abductor, giving him/her a head start and knowledge of Suzys' whereabouts. Also has diary been DNA tested for things like hair or finger prints or thumb prints which could contain DNA from licking.
I read David Videcette's Book and was totally convinced. I had heard the podcast he had done two years previously outlining why she didnt go to Shorrolds Road. Ive been following a thread on Websleuths where people have pointed out that secreting her body in a void beside the cellar permanently is one hell of a risk. I read on another site ,Medium i thitnk that the current landlord claims that Police have been to the pub , had a look around and used sonar equipment. How true thtis is i don't know. ONe thing that has occured to me. Videcettes interview with Leegood. The way in which the mood changed and on storming out, Leegood's parting shot was 'you will never find out whatt happened to Suzy'. He had been on holiday and just come back that weekend. Was he he still on holiday the Monday july 28th? Suzy had said she had dated a guy who she had become afraid of because of his temper. I wonder if that Monday she visisted him? Its hard to find out where he lived in 1986. I know he did marry in 1991.
The News of the World interest is significant. Philip Scofield & Huw Edwards have been used to distract from Ann Widdecombe (Suzy Lamplugh was her Estate Agent).
Just a small point, but it strikes me that Suzy’s car was left without handbrake on, this indicates driver usually drives an automatic ... would you concur ?
A negative review on Amazon, interested to see what you think of its points.....
'After reading the book I wrote a glowing 5-star review on Amazon, convinced the police had slipped up badly, jumped to conclusions then set off after a phantom called ‘Mr Kipper’. Sparking my interest in the case, I watched and re-watched the Oct ’86 Crimewatch reconstruction on Youtube. Which is when it became apparent there were crucial differences with the book. So who was right?
Comparing (A) a Crimewatch/police reconstruction 2-3 months after the event, using the actual witnesses, and (B) an investigation over 30 years later relying on people’s recollections for fresh insights, I have to say the former must be definitive. Here are some points which, I’m afraid, derail the author’s conclusions:
Key to No. 37 Shorrold Rd.
The cornerstone of the author’s case is that the key never left Suzy’s office, proving she didn’t go to the viewing, because there never was a Mr Kipper. And that the police used it next day during the search for her, to get into the property. But this has a fatal flaw - in the Crimewatch program the key was still missing - the policeman heading the investigation confirmed it had never been recovered. On that basis it seems pretty clear Suzy did take the key - but somehow the author ignores this. The staff went to viewings armed with a very large yellow key fob and a copy of the sale sheet, but the author’s theory requires Suzy, having carefully invented a viewing to provide cover, to then leave the office very conspicuously empty-handed - a dead giveaway in itself - and also to drive off in completely the opposite direction, nowhere near No.37. Which would be pretty boneheaded, and unthinkable for someone as bright as Suzy.
Next-door neighbour identifying Suzy
The author seems to establish, from a relative of the now-deceased neighbour at No.35, that Suzy was never positively identified by him - which he takes as further evidence she did not go to No.37. But Crimewatch shows what actually happened - at 1pm, hearing the front door of No.37 being closed, the neighbour looks up from his newspaper to see a man and a woman walk out onto the pavement. Which confirms that No.37 was visited, making it irrelevant whether the neighbour identified Suzy or not. It’s a reasonable assumption it was her - who else could it have been - a point the author does not address.
Other Shorrold Road sightings
Crimewatch show two more sightings: Suzy waiting alone on the doorstep at 12.50. Then about 1pm, Suzy outside on the pavement and a man standing in the road with a bottle of champagne. These three sightings at No.37 show Suzy did go there - but was not abducted there.
Most reliable sighting
Crimewatch introduce a friend of Suzy’s who saw her at 2.45pm, driving north through Fulham, talking to a man in the passenger seat. This friend knew Suzy very well and was 100% certain it was her. Despite spending huge amounts of time tracking down more doubtful witnesses, the author completely ignores this sighting, and does not mention it in his book.
The Prince of Wales pub
The author believes Suzy went straight from her office to the pub - anxious to retrieve her secret pocket diary, mislaid there the previous evening - and met her end there. Which is directly contradicted by the three sightings at No.37, and her friend seeing her at 2.45pm. Also, the pub had been open since midday - how would she come to grief with customers around? The person who told the author that Suzy rang him about collecting her diary also told him she never turned up. A point the author does not pursue.
All the evidence shows Suzy did go to Shorrold Road - a brief ‘viewing’ only for show - to ensure her story about meeting a customer there stayed watertight back at the office.
On Crimewatch the police stated the two knew each other, and all the evidence points to exactly that. Subsequently there were sightings of a man and woman arguing in that area and later arguing/fighting a mile away in and around Stevenage Road, where her car was later found.
Prior to publication of The Suzy Lamplugh Story in 1988, written with access to the police investigation and Suzy’s larger, more detailed, diaries there was fevered tabloid speculation about her ‘lifestyle’ - Faber & Faber rejected an offer of £250K from the News of the World for the serialisation rights. Having seen a draft, Diana Lamplugh took legal action to prevent it being published. When this failed, the author refusing to budge, she dissociated herself from it. But the disclosures in the book were only the tip of the iceberg. Amidst the controversy, the managing director of Faber & Faber maintained the author had actually been very responsible: - “He has left out some incredibly difficult stuff - material that would have been better suited to, let’s say, the News of the World than Faber & Faber.”
With no shortage of admirers, Suzy juggled suitors constantly and indulged herself to the full. But kept them in the dark about the stiff competition they faced in her hectic love life - frequent dumping being the order of the day to free up space for fresh contenders.
Consequently, in just that final weekend period there were a lot of men. First, she saw her boyfriend Adam on Fri night. Possibly somebody else at a Sat night party, from which Adam had been excluded. She saw him briefly Sun afternoon but then side-lined him again and that evening went to another man’s flat, from which she rang him for a brief chat. On Monday, next up was ‘Mr Kipper’ - so urgent she broke all the rules and invented the viewing at No.37. They then spent some hours talking, then arguing, and eventually fighting. But in him she overstepped the mark with the wrong man - and it finally caught up with her.'
Thanks for posting this comment, Iain. Comments are hugely rewarding as it's one of the few ways writers know that people are reading our stuff!
You have raised such an important general point about amateur investigators that I can see my way to a longer article which I will send out later on. On the specific points in this review, I am not convinced. It is too easy to accept a Crimewatch reconstruction as fact. But Crimewatch always worked closely with police, with officers appearing on each show. The Crimewatch film is the police film, and Diana Lamplugh was active even at that stage in managing Suzy's reputation. Towards the end of the review, the author strays into a spot of victim blaming. Suzy's lifestyle was perfectly 'normal' (as in typical) for working men and women in the 1980s in London and there is no evidence that she in any way contributed to her abduction.
This does not mean that I 100% accept David Videcette's conclusions either, but sometimes after the passing of decades, it is possible that people speak more openly. It is one of the major unsolved crimes of the last 50 years and those who knew Suzy must be haunted by it. I often find myself writing that only the killer really knows what happened, and that is even more so when there is no body. Something I try to do on Crime Guy is try to present the balanced facts and let readers like you decide for yourself. In the case of John Cannan I find it impossible. I think David Videcette does accurately track the way that lead was instigated by Diana Lamplugh and what he found stunned even me. I don't necessarily think Suzy went to the pub, and I'm not necessarily convinced that there only ever was a single key - it just seems a lot of expectation to put on one tiny piece of evidence. But David makes his case after months of professional investigation, as a former detective himself, and I am more likely to support him than an Amazon reviewer who just watched Crimewatch and chose to believe it all. I am looking at following the estate agency colleagues angle more closely because people quickly ruled her colleagues out. Why? She disappeared during working hours. Her colleague reported her missing far more quickly than average. (Claudia Lawrence's managers never reported her missing at all.) If there is a man with a motive, it is likely that a colleague will know something. Is that why she was reported missing so quickly? I haven't really seen anything about this case that identifies a proper suspect with a clear motive and opportunity, which in itself is highly unusual.
Apart from anything else, focusing on one possible suspect in the way Cannan has been linked to Suzy tends to shut out other options. Even if I am wrong and Cannan is the killer, why waste time pressuring one person who will never confess? If he really did kill Suzy, a better way to prove it is to find the body. If she was in a suitcase or plastic there might still be evidence to collect. What do you think?
Hi Paul, I forwarded the review to both see if it gave you thought on your own points and also for you to pick it apart, as you know the case intimately. For my own thoughts, I still tend to lean towards Cannan, although men like Steve Wright or a complete unknown I wouldnt rule out. I agree on the body point. If the claim about Canaan and the canal is true and even if not, I would rather have lent towards trying to drain it, at least then we'd know the claim is the rosetta stone or bunkum. UK police forces have drained lakes and water areas for much longer cold cases (like Moira Anderson and she disappeared in 1957). Or dug up many an area for older cold cases.
One of the things I really like about this research is that you come across people with such different theories about a case. So often I think I have found a coherent narrative that fits everything, and it takes hours or days to construct, and then someone else disputes key elements in just a few seconds. It's very much a hunches game in some ways. You've made me reconsider my own thoughts on Cannan. I find it frustrating that I can only say 'not Cannan' but I have no alternative name to suggest! I also think a random stranger is possible - that was basically my conclusion about Sophie Toscan du Plantier, which I looked at more closely last year. I was not aware of Moira Anderson - that really is a grim case - I will return to that later on. Only last summer an expensive water draining exercise was carried out for Claudia Lawrence. I guess draining a canal is harder than draining a small pond. Do you know if they ever sent divers in looking for Suzy? I remember from the various documentaries that the police never really took that sighting seriously. The CPS never entertained the Cannan theory. Here's one for the conspiracy theorists: isn't Cannan like Canal??? Riddle me that!
To add, re: timeline, on Friday she had a cut and highlights around Fulham Palace Road. According to Stephen. This is also a small detail but something to note on the timeline perhaps. Planning permission on the basement was being sought by an associate and friend of hers I believe. A new Estate Agency I believe. Did she get chatting or go for a drink to that end?
There was a lot of detail in her personal life that may have been relevant and seems forgotten or overlooked. The fact she had gone to a Saudi Arabian exhibition, (at Earls Court), a well known one, for example, pre its official opening, said her lodger in one article at the time. The previous flat mate who said she was rung up by mysterious people. Etc.
It would have been helpful if Videcette had referred to these source materials when he was interviewing them, to job memories which understandably would have dimmed after more than 30 years.
She was also due to see a man close to her Birthday in May but changed her mind. This was just the sort of thing that JC would have seen red about. Of course, if it had been him. Instead, she went to Wales with her cousin and family, as press articles show.
If such a busy office how was she able to take time off to do this? After work?
NB: I mean re: Friday and taking time off not her Birthday.
Reflecting on comment by Iain Hamilton:
A woman or a couple outside 37 Shorrolds Rd.
Videcette didn't unpack or address the fact that a woman or a man, possibly both, were almost certainly outside Shorrolds Rd at lunchtime on Monday.
If not Suzy who was the woman? Who were the couple? It's interesting that in one interview Videcette almost suggests he thinks someone (a woman) was there, not Suzy. Did the police ask all Estate Agents etc doing viewings that afternoon etc, to come forward?
It was thought at the time that Suzy hadn't been inside Shorrolds Road I think, so my feeling is, if there then this was an agreed pick up spot. Or the viewer said 'not my thing'.
The older style BMW outside Shorrolds
The police got about half way through checking re: the distinctive car that was parked there, but didn't fully check this lead out. Possibly a red herring but worth fully investigating. It's also interesting to note that a BMW was originally apparently reported to the pop up police station around Stevenage Road at the time but the details lost or misfiled.
The witnesses to the Shorrolds Road sightings
Does Videcette think one of them was a plant? He suggests that the ex cellar man he tries to visit in the book was being furtive and avoiding him. Interestingly there was also an Irish cellar man in the Prince of Wales back in 86, he also flags this in the book.
There were at least four witnesses who reported the Shorrolds Rd sightings fairly early on, at least one was very credible.
Stevenage Road witnesses
Two separate people plus reported a violently arguing couple in Stevenage Road. Jagoda also apparently saw a man with a deep tan, good looking and possibly carrying books and a suitcase.
The more interesting sighting was by 'James Galway' lookalike who was picked up by a taxi driver near Finlay St. 'Thank Christ you came along' 'That couple are having a right ruck'. Why was a geezer type middle aged man apparently scared by a rowing couple? Why didn't he and the taxi driver double back to see the woman was ok? Especially if really that disturbing to 'James Galway'.
The taxi driver didn't come forward again and this again would have been interesting for Videcette to explore.
Why was the passenger going only to Macdonalds down the road?
Barbara W
Barbara was very credible, she knew Suzy and was at least originally convinced 'it was her'. The police were diligent and went to her office and interviewed her colleagues. Yes, it WAS that Monday she was out at lunchtime, all agreed and diaries confirmed. It made sense that she was where she said she was at that time. Later it was thought BW MUST have been wrong. It being a Monday, well less likely Barbara would have confused it with another day.
SL herself
She wasn't just a 'modern' girl or a typical 80s girl as has been said. There was a lot more going on and she had a separate set of friends the 'Putney set' didn't know about. Not to judge her in any way but this needed to be looked at quite carefully as so often the clues are right there.
She said to an Uncle, as shown in the documentary 'The Man Who Killed Suzy Lamplugh' that someone was 'leaning on her' and she was apparently 'almost angry'. She was also keen to sell her flat, a few purchases had fallen through, she wanted to upgrade and had possibly agreed to a shared ownership arrangement where she allowed someone to use her address etc in return for a cash injection. She was going into a beauty business potentially with friends. Something came out later, uncovered by the journalist and writer Andrew Stephen. He'd wanted to keep it to himself but a later court case forced him to reveal private details he'd apparently uncovered. This really upset her parents. Some called this muck racking and prurient but what if the answer lay somehow within all this? Was she under pressure to raise money? Suddenly, quite fast? Did this mean she took action she might not have previously?
Sunday night before she went missing
Her current boyfriend emerged as her champion and was impressively steadfast in the glare of all the publicity. She had a new boyfriend, or date with a new man while her established boyfriend was on holiday, one known to the current boyfriend. He was very wealthy, this new man. Was he the person she saw on Sunday evening after leaving her parents about 9pm? His name in press articles etc at time. Was he her plus one at the 21st she attended on the Saturday night? NB: the last published photo of her. NB: I am sure he wasn't responsible, neither boyfriend in fact, but possibly one of many protecting her reputation, as perhaps they saw it, in doing this, did some IMPORTANT details in the timeline get lost? Whether her things went missing near the pub phone box on Friday or Sunday, what did it really matter? Maybe it DID really matter, that's the thing.
Sunday nights were also the nights she gave beauty treatments to the glamorous couple, (at least a couple of years earlier I believe) her friends at the time and the woman was someone she was apparently going into business with in the not too distant future. Which makes me think of the business arrangement she had with someone never confirmed or traced. Although John Cannan and some scheme possibly the most likely candidate.
Wendy
I think Videcette is right in that Wendy was mistaken about seeing the fiesta not long after 12 on the Monday. It being there later in the afternoon and possibly she was swiftly transferred against her will, hence shouting couple, 'yowl' heard by schoolboys etc, into a red sierra JC borrowed from the hostel inmate cook to get home to Birmingham.
Videcette
Surely he has more he can't share? On the temp pub landlord and wife perhaps? The fact he expected an immediate arrest tells us that, he's an ex policeman, he knows what's needed for this. He says he has a full dossier.
JC
I think he probably is the culprit for lots of reasons.
Has nobody assumed that whoever killed her might have burnt the body!
DV investigated the case for 3 years - he concludes that Suzy only left the office with purse and car keys....between 12.30 and 12.40 is the best guess ......her car was parked in Whittingstall Rd. But DV concludes that she left the office and turned right ......not left up to Whittingstall Rd where the car was allegedly parked by the colleague.....
Hello. I have just seen a documentary about this case. Could any one tell me if the diary and cheque book were left at pub the day before or if they went missing the day before from somewhere else and then turned up at the pub. These possessions could of been in the hands of her abductor, giving him/her a head start and knowledge of Suzys' whereabouts. Also has diary been DNA tested for things like hair or finger prints or thumb prints which could contain DNA from licking.
I read David Videcette's Book and was totally convinced. I had heard the podcast he had done two years previously outlining why she didnt go to Shorrolds Road. Ive been following a thread on Websleuths where people have pointed out that secreting her body in a void beside the cellar permanently is one hell of a risk. I read on another site ,Medium i thitnk that the current landlord claims that Police have been to the pub , had a look around and used sonar equipment. How true thtis is i don't know. ONe thing that has occured to me. Videcettes interview with Leegood. The way in which the mood changed and on storming out, Leegood's parting shot was 'you will never find out whatt happened to Suzy'. He had been on holiday and just come back that weekend. Was he he still on holiday the Monday july 28th? Suzy had said she had dated a guy who she had become afraid of because of his temper. I wonder if that Monday she visisted him? Its hard to find out where he lived in 1986. I know he did marry in 1991.
Any idea why the case of reopened just recently? I saw a ton of police activity just two days ago on Langthrone.
Do you have any update? Is this Langthorne Street off FPR?
Yes, I helped re-open it - where is Langthrone?
The News of the World interest is significant. Philip Scofield & Huw Edwards have been used to distract from Ann Widdecombe (Suzy Lamplugh was her Estate Agent).
Just a small point, but it strikes me that Suzy’s car was left without handbrake on, this indicates driver usually drives an automatic ... would you concur ?
I think the driver was in such a rush to get rid of the car he drove down one of main streets in fulham and dumped car outside the first Sturgis sign