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.'
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.'
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).
Any idea why the case of reopened just recently? I saw a ton of police activity just two days ago on Langthrone.
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 ?