The Lord Lucan mystery

Mother and stepfather of Princess Diana ...

Diana's mother and stepfather were Frances and Peter Shand Kydd, the latter being the half-brother of Bill Shand Kydd, the brother-in-law of Lord Lucan.

Wanted to add for clarity that the ultimate chutzpah was that Lucan managed to achieve what he had wanted all along (given that he and his wife were involved in a custody dispute over the children). He made sure that his wife did not get custody of the children.

Money and friends in high places!

Mimi wrote:https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-79933348.html

Sadly, living in a rented bedsit in 2001.  Wonder if he keeps in touch with Neil, his step-brother.

Am quite interested because I used to live in the same area and had my son in the same nursing home as Sandra Rivett - I probably knew the Estate Agent she had an affair with.

Stephen was ten years old and living with his grandparents, Albert and Eunice Hensby, in a caravan near Reading on the night Lord 'Lucky' Lucan is believed to have battered his children's nanny to death, mistaking her for his wife Veronica, who had been awarded custody of their three children.

I didn't realize that Lady Lucan had already been awarded custody of the children.

But it is still possible that the nanny was intended to be murdered. Why was the assumption necessarily made that the murderer mistook the nanny for Lady Lucan?

The nanny's day off was usually Thursday (the day she was murdered) but for some reason she had changed the day for that week.

Thus Lord Lucan (if he was the killer) did not expect her to be there.

Andrew wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4327934/Lady-Lucan-FINALLY-speaks-husband-s-disappearance.html

Lady Lucan FINALLY speaks out about the disappearance of her husband 43 years ago: Reclusive wife agrees to appear in documentary to 'get revenge against her son'
Lady Lucan will finally speak about the fateful night her husband disappeared
She has reportedly been seen at various London locations with a film crew
Lord Lucan disappeared in 1974 after nanny Sandra Rivett was found murdered
She is understood to be receiving a £56,000 fee for her appearance in the film

This is an interesting comment. The plot thickens. All sorts of possible scenarios here.

@Lady de Shalott. Their daughter recalls hearing her father wallking from room to room calling out to his wife, when she had suddenly disappeared while he was fetching towels to tend to her wounds in the bedroom. Not the actions of a panicked, desperate or crazed man intent on murdering his wife with his children in the house.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4327934/Lady-Lucan-FINALLY-speaks-husband-s-disappearance.html#ixzz4iORbX0ET
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I wonder, but this is just a hunch! All IMO, and not even really that.
Did he have some sort of affair with the nanny, who was subsequently killed by his wife, as well as himself? And subsequently she injured herself to stage the story ...

YES, I know, I read too many crime novels ...

Châtelaine wrote:I wonder, but this is just a hunch! All IMO, and not even really that.
Did he have some sort of affair with the nanny, who was subsequently killed by his wife, as well as himself? And subsequently she injured herself to stage the story ...

YES, I know, I read too many crime novels ...

Yes, but where did she hide Lucan`s body ?

***
Well, that's the next question, of course.
ETA with an estate as theirs [haven't checked] they may have a private cemetery.
No use to send in the dogs, it's all cadaver ...
And STILL only a Ms. Marple-mind going "bananas"

While I am prepared to keep an open mind about what happened, I would say that this is pretty damning. It's almost as bad, if not worse, than 'the dog ate my homework'.

Sorry, but this account is just absurd:

In the hours following the murder of Sandra Rivett in the basement of 46 Lower Belgrave Street on the night of November 7 1974, Lucan drove a borrowed Ford Corsair 42 miles to the house of friends, Ian and Susan Maxwell-Scott, at Uckfield, East Sussex. There he wrote two letters to Bill Shand Kydd, who duly read them out at the inquest into Sandra Rivett’s death in 1975.
In the first Lucan claimed that he had been walking past his old house when, peering into the basement window, he saw his wife struggling with a man. Letting himself in, he made his way down to the basement where he slipped in a pool of blood as he was rushing to his wife’s assistance. The assailant had then run off, but Veronica became hysterical, accusing him of hiring someone to kill her before running from the house. “I will lie doggo for a while,” Lucan wrote, “but I am only concerned about the children. If you can manage it I would like them to live with you.” The second letter dealt with a planned auction of some of the family silver, and Lucan asked that the proceeds should be used to clear his bank overdrafts.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/11319317/Bill-Shand-Kydd-obituary.html

Châtelaine wrote:

Mimi wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:I wonder, but this is just a hunch! All IMO, and not even really that.
Did he have some sort of affair with the nanny, who was subsequently killed by his wife, as well as himself? And subsequently she injured herself to stage the story ...

YES, I know, I read too many crime novels ...

Yes, but where did she hide Lucan`s body ?

***
Well, that's the next question, of course.
ETA with an estate as theirs [haven't checked] they may have a private cemetery.
No use to send in the dogs, it's all cadaver ...
And STILL only a Ms. Marple-mind going "bananas"

Yes - I thought that too! It is perfectly possible Lucan had an affair with the nanny. I suppose that might explain the weird account of what happened above. It may be that Lucan and the nanny wanted to get rid of the wife while the wife wanted to get rid of Lucan and the nanny....

Where is Inspector Clouseau when you need him?!

I think that Sandra (the nanny) had only worked there for a few weeks - can't find confirmation at the moment - and, as Lord Lucan didn't live there, it's possible that he had never met her.

This link looks like a comprehensive account of the event and aftermath.

http://www.lordlucan.com/lucan_story.htm

Apparently Sandra Rivett (the nanny) had only been with them 2 months before this happened - which is a bit quick for her to get involved with Lucan and plan the death of his wife.

I think he left that car at Newhaven to make people think he had gone aboard the ferry then got a friend to come and pick him up.

This woman reckons he ended up in Gabon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9276358/I-helped-Lord-Lucan-live-a-secret-life-in-Africa.html

That link was posted here before on 5th February 2016. An absolutely bonkers story as far as I'm concerned!

Freedom wrote:I wonder if she now has any accurate memories of that night; she was then 10, now she is in her 50s.

She certainly gave statements at the time that her father was in the house.

Apologies, I have confused the daughters. Camilla was only 4 at the time; it was Frances who was 10.

I think the son, George, has come up with the most likely story. Many of the things he points out in this video are totally rational IMO and could be the reason he`s cut off relations with his mother. He starts speaking from about 10 mins on.

Interesting....yes sounds quite plausible.

The Earl, Shand Kydd explained to the inquest, was “not one of my greatest friends, but I like him”. He claimed that he had last seen Lucan two weeks before he disappeared, when the Earl had expressed concern that his children were not being properly cared for.

Hmmm.....


http://www.lordlucan.com/lucan_story.htm

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/lady-lucan-im-deeply-sad-my-marriage-caused-the-nanny-to-die/ar-BBBEaUz?li=AAnZ9Ug&ocid=mailsignout

Some quotes from the TV interview.

I'm not sure that I wanted to read the last sentence! Is it even true? I've never heard that mentioned before.

Goodness knows if it`s true.  Possible I suppose - he did stay with her for 40 mins after supposedly finding her (so the son says) and in a documentary I watched ages ago, the wife said he was going to the bathroom to get stuff to bathe her wounds and that`s when she legged it.  It seemed to fit what the son said - that Lucan came into the house after the attack and found his wife injured.  But who knows what sort of people want intercourse after they`ve been bashed on the head by an intruder?  She`s always seemed odd to me.  None of his friends liked her but who are they to judge.

Mimi wrote:Apparently Sandra Rivett (the nanny) had only been with them 2 months before this happened - which is a bit quick for her to get involved with Lucan and plan the death of his wife.

I think he left that car at Newhaven to make people think he had gone aboard the ferry then got a friend to come and pick him up.

This woman reckons he ended up in Gabon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9276358/I-helped-Lord-Lucan-live-a-secret-life-in-Africa.html

I don't think it sounds particularly bonkers. Sounds quite plausible. There were clearly friends in high places who protected Lord Lucan.

I suspect his wife knows he did not drown himself.

ETA: Should have written ex-wife.

Also very interesting, imo, that this was the last inquest where there was a jury...... did twelve good men and true come up with a verdict that did not support the Establishment version of events?

It strikes me that that there have been a great many inquests of late in cases that look to be on the dodgy side where the verdict does not stand proper scrutiny.

Hmm...

I'm assuming Mimi that it's not something that Lady Lucan agreed to.

Who would, knowing that your estranged husband had killed someone else, thinking that it was you and then attacked you as well.

She must have been terrified for her life.

I'm just surprised that it's never been mentioned before.

I`ve never heard it before either Freedom - maybe it`s something she`s recently come up with - not sure I trust what she says.

She may not have known `her husband had just killed someone` if it was an intruder that was burgling the place - she would have been grateful that he had turned up to help her as he was supposedly bathing her head when she legged it.

If there were vitriolic circumstances in the split up and a custody battle for the kids, she may have been canny enough to use the opportunity to set him up good and proper.  Now she comes out with the latest bit of info that she thinks will secure her innocence, but IMO it raises more questions as to her state of mind.  The kids have got on with their lives but she has lived in that capsule ever since.

It seems the children have been estranged from her for decades and one wonders why. The son, George, seems to have thought the whole thing through and seems quite rational even though he comes across as a bit of a hooray henry - he can`t help that !

I don`t know what happened obviously but I`m always a bit suspicious of mousy little victims that the police believe in the first instance.

Has that article in the link I posted been updated, Mimi? I'm sure that it gave the impression that she was talking about the night of the murder but now it's earlier occasions, nothing to do with that night.

This now agrees with the quotes about the programme in next week's Radio Times.

Freedom wrote:Has that article in the link I posted been updated, Mimi? I'm sure that it gave the impression that she was talking about the night of the murder but now it's earlier occasions, nothing to do with that night.

This now agrees with the quotes about the programme in next week's Radio Times.

It`s still the same as far as I can see from the link you supplied from the Telegraph - but because there are two separate paragraphs I assumed the last paragraph was referring to that night, but if you link it to the paragraph above, it could be it was something that happened often :-

"In a bleak insight into their marriage, she claimed her husband would beat her with a cane when she became depressed, to get the “mad ideas out of your head”.

"“He could have hit harder,” she told the programme. “They were measured blows. He must have got pleasure out of it because he had intercourse [with me] afterwards.”

What does it say in the Radio Times?

I feel sure that the first paragraph about an insight into the marriage wasn't there orignally and the impression was definitely given that she was talking about the night of the murder.

There is no way that what is there now could have been interpreted otherwise.

Not to worry, it can't be checked now.

The Radio Times says the same as is now in the link.

Another one here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4553216/Lord-Lucan-s-widow-shares-details-fraught-relationship.html

This sounds like "too much information" thank you. I'm not sure if such intimate details are necessary!