UK UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #5

[Andyboy]

Is it only me that feels it unusual that SC defends the 4 that were arrested and JK?

There is something very strange about this case. It's almost as though the only people who are able to make controversial comment are Suzy Cooper and Jen King. They are wheeled out in every TV documentary as the most affected friends when Claudia had many other friends.
They have attempted to excuse previous comments in their latest documentary and their latest appearance was filmed with "crocodile tears"
In social media JK attacks anyone with a view that is not aligned to hers and SC always takes the moral high ground

If I was Suzy or Jen then I would welcome anyone who wanted to assist and find out what happened to Claudia. But somehow there is a hard resistance that comes from these two ladies who apart from reserving their own dedicated space to be the pure commentary, feel that anyone else cannot have an interest or possibly be a friend of Claudia.
Almost a position reserved for close family.

I find this unhealthy and if I was a Senior Investigating Officer I would want to ask many questions of these two ladies to ensure that there was more clarity than "Mist over Pendle" IMO of course.
We all now know that The Nags Head was a local cocaine pick up point and that the alleyway behind Claudias house was the pick up and drop off point. The police won't admit to this but they were observing this for some time. The Alley man was a courier and if you frequented this pub you would be aware that you could purchase drugs here.

lots to think about and when you take all of this together you start to see that it was not only Claudia was complex.
In addition we now know that Heworth was not the most desirable area of York but even after Claudia went missing, some of her friends decided to stay put in this manor. Perhaps because they had continuing business interests in the area of a lucrative nature?

I think 1 of them has a mental block and is in total denial about the whole situation, and the other one, well you can draw your own conclusions there

 

[Andyboy]

Is it only me that feels it unusual that SC defends the 4 that were arrested and JK?

There is something very strange about this case. It's almost as though the only people who are able to mcontroversial comment are Suzy Cooper and Jen King. They are wheeled out in every TV documentary as the most affected friends when Claudia had many other friends.
They have attempted to excuse previous comments in their latest documentary and their latest appearance was filmed with "crocodile tears"
In social media JK attacks anyone with a view that is not aligned to hers and SC always takes the moral high ground

If I was Suzy or Jen then I would welcome anyone who wanted to assist and find out what happened

 

[Andyboy]

If I was involved I'd probably be happier if they said nothing, 1 of them especially

 

[Popejohn3]

Is it only me that feels it unusual that SC defends the 4 that were arrested and JK?

There is something very strange about this case. It's almost as though the only people who are able to make controversial comment are Suzy Cooper and Jen King. They are wheeled out in every TV documentary as the most affected friends when Claudia had many other friends.
They have attempted to excuse previous comments in their latest documentary and their latest appearance was filmed with "crocodile tears"
In social media JK attacks anyone with a view that is not aligned to hers and SC always takes the moral high ground

If I was Suzy or Jen then I would welcome anyone who wanted to assist and find out what happened to Claudia. But somehow there is a hard resistance that comes from these two ladies who apart from reserving their own dedicated space to be the pure commentary, feel that anyone else cannot have an interest or possibly be a friend of Claudia.
Almost a position reserved for close family.

I find this unhealthy and if I was a Senior Investigating Officer I would want to ask many questions of these two ladies to ensure that there was more clarity than "Mist over Pendle" IMO of course.
We all now know that The Nags Head was a local cocaine pick up point and that the alleyway behind Claudias house was the pick up and drop off point. The police won't admit to this but they were observing this for some time. The Alley man was a courier and if you frequented this pub you would be aware that you could purchase drugs here.

lots to think about and when you take all of this together you start to see that it was not only Claudia was complex.
In addition we now know that Heworth was not the most desirable area of York but even after Claudia went missing, some of her friends decided to stay put in this manor. Perhaps because they had continuing business interests in the area of a lucrative nature?

I think 1 of them has a mental block and is in total denial about the whole situation, and the other one, well you can draw your own conclusions there

conclusion is the operative word .Clearly they both loved Claudia and she disappeared out of their lives overnight.
They cannot really move on with their lives.
If only some courageous person would tell them where she is .
Not telling them is a whole new crime and very cruel indeed ...

 

[Popejohn3]

If I was involved I'd probably be happier if they said nothing, 1 of them especially

Can you explain further ?

 

[Andyboy]

Can you explain further ?

Dead before she hit the ground and putting her back together are not the phrases most friends would come out with I don't think

 

[An_Owl]

Hello, new to WS.

The recent detail about the early morning CCTV is interesting and I can’t be the only one to have been a bit puzzled about how light it appeared to be at just after 5am in mid-March in that footage. It is still what is called “nautical twilight” at that time of day in mid-March in York and the footage we see has considerably more daylight in it than that. And much more than the braking car footage which was meant to be 5.42am (i.e. later than the footage of the man walking to the rear of Heworth Road, despite taking place in a darker environment).

I therefore agree that the footage of the person seen walking to the rear of Heworth Road on the 19th must actually be from around 6am, and not 5am, particularly given that the person in the light top on the opposite side of the road is then seen on the Costcutters CCTV a few minutes later in what seems to be a decent level of daylight. This would place the activity seen on CCTV *after* the braking car activity, rather than before it. So the braking car arrives first, and arrives some time before the chap walking to the rear of the property. This changes the ‘official’ chronology considerably.

If we assume that the time stamp on the CCTV is approx one hour out of sync with reality then this also has implications for the previous night’s similar footage, taken from the same camera. That was time stamped at 7.15pm. Does this mean that the activity seen was actually taking place at around 8.15pm instead? That’s very close to the time that she was last heard from.

But surely the police would know that??? Is there some other reason why they insist on an official time of 7.15pm and then 5.07am for that activity?

This is a very odd case and so many elements are difficult to reconcile.

 

[Popejohn3]

Hello, new to WS.

The recent detail about the early morning CCTV is interesting and I can’t be the only one to have been a bit puzzled about how light it appeared to be at just after 5am in mid-March in that footage. It is still what is called “nautical twilight” at that time of day in mid-March in York and the footage we see has considerably more daylight in it than that. And much more than the braking car footage which was meant to be 5.42am (i.e. later than the footage of the man walking to the rear of Heworth Road, despite taking place in a darker environment).

I therefore agree that the footage of the person seen walking to the rear of Heworth Road on the 19th must actually be from around 6am, and not 5am, particularly given that the person in the light top on the opposite side of the road is then seen on the Costcutters CCTV a few minutes later in what seems to be a decent level of daylight. This would place the activity seen on CCTV *after* the braking car activity, rather than before it. So the braking car arrives first, and arrives some time before the chap walking to the rear of the property. This changes the ‘official’ chronology considerably.

But surely the police would know that??? Is there some other reason why they insist on an official time of 5.07am for that activity?

This is a very odd case and so many elements are difficult to reconcile.

Different cameras different quality image .Surly clouds come and go ?
The time accuracy of the film would be paramount for the police to ascertain .

 

[Popejohn3]

Hello, new to WS.

The recent detail about the early morning CCTV is interesting and I can’t be the only one to have been a bit puzzled about how light it appeared to be at just after 5am in mid-March in that footage. It is still what is called “nautical twilight” at that time of day in mid-March in York and the footage we see has considerably more daylight in it than that. And much more than the braking car footage which was meant to be 5.42am (i.e. later than the footage of the man walking to the rear of Heworth Road, despite taking place in a darker environment).

I therefore agree that the footage of the person seen walking to the rear of Heworth Road on the 19th must actually be from around 6am, and not 5am, particularly given that the person in the light top on the opposite side of the road is then seen on the Costcutters CCTV a few minutes later in what seems to be a decent level of daylight. This would place the activity seen on CCTV *after* the braking car activity, rather than before it. So the braking car arrives first, and arrives some time before the chap walking to the rear of the property. This changes the ‘official’ chronology considerably.

If we assume that the time stamp on the CCTV is approx one hour out of sync with reality then this also has implications for the previous night’s similar footage, taken from the same camera. That was time stamped at 7.15pm. Does this mean that the activity seen was actually taking place at around 8.15pm instead? That’s very close to the time that she was last heard from.

But surely the police would know that??? Is there some other reason why they insist on an official time of 7.15pm and then 5.07am for that activity?

This is a very odd case and so many elements are difficult to reconcile.

Hello, new to WS.

The recent detail about the early morning CCTV is interesting and I can’t be the only one to have been a bit puzzled about how light it appeared to be at just after 5am in mid-March in that footage. It is still what is called “nautical twilight” at that time of day in mid-March in York and the footage we see has considerably more daylight in it than that. And much more than the braking car footage which was meant to be 5.42am (i.e. later than the footage of the man walking to the rear of Heworth Road, despite taking place in a darker environment).

I therefore agree that the footage of the person seen walking to the rear of Heworth Road on the 19th must actually be from around 6am, and not 5am, particularly given that the person in the light top on the opposite side of the road is then seen on the Costcutters CCTV a few minutes later in what seems to be a decent level of daylight. This would place the activity seen on CCTV *after* the braking car activity, rather than before it. So the braking car arrives first, and arrives some time before the chap walking to the rear of the property. This changes the ‘official’ chronology considerably.

If we assume that the time stamp on the CCTV is approx one hour out of sync with reality then this also has implications for the previous night’s similar footage, taken from the same camera. That was time stamped at 7.15pm. Does this mean that the activity seen was actually taking place at around 8.15pm instead? That’s very close to the time that she was last heard from.

But surely the police would know that??? Is there some other reason why they insist on an official time of 7.15pm and then 5.07am for that activity?

This is a very odd case and so many elements are difficult to reconcile.

Hello, new to WS.

The recent detail about the early morning CCTV is interesting and I can’t be the only one to have been a bit puzzled about how light it appeared to be at just after 5am in mid-March in that footage. It is still what is called “nautical twilight” at that time of day in mid-March in York and the footage we see has considerably more daylight in it than that. And much more than the braking car footage which was meant to be 5.42am (i.e. later than the footage of the man walking to the rear of Heworth Road, despite taking place in a darker environment).

I therefore agree that the footage of the person seen walking to the rear of Heworth Road on the 19th must actually be from around 6am, and not 5am, particularly given that the person in the light top on the opposite side of the road is then seen on the Costcutters CCTV a few minutes later in what seems to be a decent level of daylight. This would place the activity seen on CCTV *after* the braking car activity, rather than before it. So the braking car arrives first, and arrives some time before the chap walking to the rear of the property. This changes the ‘official’ chronology considerably.

If we assume that the time stamp on the CCTV is approx one hour out of sync with reality then this also has implications for the previous night’s similar footage, taken from the same camera. That was time stamped at 7.15pm. Does this mean that the activity seen was actually taking place at around 8.15pm instead? That’s very close to the time that she was last heard from.

But surely the police would know that??? Is there some other reason why they insist on an official time of 7.15pm and then 5.07am for that activity?

This is a very odd case and so many elements are difficult to reconcile.

You are new to ws but can I ask how long you’ve been following this case ? If I may that is ?

 

[An_Owl]

You are new to ws but can I ask how long you’ve been following this case ? If I may that is ?

A few years off and on. No personal connection to it.

IMO The footage is too light for 5.07am given that official sunrise on 19/03 is 6.10. It starts getting light well before sunrise but not as light as that an hour in advance. I live in the north of England and do sometimes get up very early at weekends to drive over to the Lakes for walks. It would still be very dark at 5.07am in mid March.

 

[Yozzer]

Dead before she hit the ground and putting her back together are not the phrases most friends would come out with I don't think

Both very odd, cold and detached phrases.

 

[Popejohn3]

Both very odd, cold and detached phrases.

Other close friends and relatives are in a much better position to decide on the words ‘ odd cold and detached’ because they know the speaker

 

[Yozzer]

A few years off and on. No personal connection to it.

IMO The footage is too light for 5.07am given that official sunrise on 19/03 is 6.10. It starts getting light well before sunrise but not as light as that an hour in advance. I live in the north of England and do sometimes get up very early at weekends to drive over to the Lakes for walks. It would still be very dark at 5.07am in mid March.

Hello @An_Owl and thanks for your detailed post.
Police admitted early on in the case that there were problems in 2009 with the timings of the early morning cctv footage of Heworth Place/Limes Court. It may be possible to uncover the outcome of this by digging back through news reports from March to June 2009. Then, of course, the theory emerged that the man featured in the clip was the (by then deceased) local landlord Mr. Cartwright. After the furore raised by his family about linking him to the disappearance of CL, this footage disappeared and is now difficult to find on the North Yorks. Police website.

When judging light levels on that morning, it is useful to compare like for like so here is a clip of the 5:07 cctv (clip 13 onwards)

and here is a clip of the Ford Focus at 05.42 from the same camera in Lime Court
Old-style light coloured Ford Focus seen braking

Note on the 2nd clip there is a shadow of the building on the right /at the front of the image which falls onto the road. This isn't present in the earlier image.
I believe this is because the Lime Court camera is facing due east and at the time of the later clip 05.42, the sun has risen over the rooftops of the properties on Heworth Road, thus creating shadows. The rising sun is easier to see from the other camera shot of the Ford Focus (see 1st link). It is interesting to compare how dark the Heworth Road images are compared with the ones from the camera angle in Lime Court.

See what you think.

 

[Yozzer]

Other close friends and relatives are in a much better position to decide on the words ‘ odd cold and detached’ because they know the speaker

But they choose, or are encouraged, to stay quiet. Unless they are on this website defending them from a safe distance. All IMO of course.

 

[Popejohn3]

But they choose, or are encouraged, to stay quiet. All IMO of course.

I’m sure they are told to stay quiet with regards to media and the likes of us .but there is nothing to stop them telling police what they think in confidence ?!in fact they are probably encouraged to speak out

 

[An_Owl]

Hello @An_Owl and thanks for your detailed post.
Police admitted early on in the case that there were problems in 2009 with the timings of the early morning cctv footage of Heworth Place/Limes Court. It may be possible to uncover the outcome of this by digging back through news reports from March to June 2009. Then, of course, the theory emerged that the man featured in the clip was the (by then deceased) local landlord Mr. Cartwright. After the furore raised by his family about linking him to the disappearance of CL, this footage disappeared and is now difficult to find on the North Yorks. Police website.

When judging light levels on that morning, it is useful to compare like for like so here is a clip of the 5:07 cctv (clip 13 onwards)

and here is a clip of the Ford Focus at 05.42 from the same camera in Lime Court
Old-style light coloured Ford Focus seen braking

Note on the 2nd clip there is a shadow of the building on the right /at the front of the image which falls onto the road. This isn't present in the earlier image.
I believe this is because the Lime Court camera is facing due east and at the time of the later clip 05.42, the sun has risen over the rooftops of the properties on Heworth Road, thus creating shadows. The rising sun is easier to see from the other camera shot of the Ford Focus (see 1st link). It is interesting to compare how dark the Heworth Road images are compared with the ones from the camera angle in Lime Court.

See what you think.

Yes, I fully see your point and it’s very useful to look at the footage from the angles you indicate. Thank you for that, it is very informative.

But IMO the Heworth Road footage is still much too light to be 5.07. IMO it must be later than that. Indeed, the Ford Focus footage is itself IMO likely to be a little later than 0542 if the sun is already getting above the houses.

This does have a bearing on the case because *if* Claudia left for work from her home that morning and intended to walk then she would leave at something like 0520, and IMO both the Ford Focus and Heworth Road footage takes place something like half an hour or more after that specific time (irrespective of what the Heworth Road time stamp may say). If she walked to work then she didn’t get as far as any of the CCTV cameras en route, which would mean disappearing by approx 0530 prior to reaching the Post Office CCTV, as we know she does not appear on that CCTV. This would be well before the Ford Focus brakes sharply in Heworth Road.

As far as I am aware, the police have said nothing about any vehicular activity on Heworth Road between 0515 and 0530, or any such activity around the area covered by the Post Office CCTV?

That alone leaves me feeling that she did not leave home at 0520 that day. The timing of her disappearance simply does not fit with the nature of the other evidence as I see it.

Whereas if she was intending to get a lift from someone then she would leave circa 0540 or 0545, which is a closer time to the activity taking place in the morning, judging from the light levels on the CCTV.

IMO whatever happened to her happened either in or very, very close to her home.

 

[Yozzer]

Yes, I fully see your point and it’s very useful to look at the footage from the angles you indicate. Thank you for that, it is very informative.

But IMO the Heworth Road footage is still much too light to be 5.07. IMO it must be later than that. Indeed, the Ford Focus footage is itself IMO likely to be a little later than 0542 if the sun is already getting above the houses.

This does have a bearing on the case because *if* Claudia left for work from her home that morning and intended to walk then she would leave at something like 0520, and IMO both the Ford Focus and Heworth Road footage takes place something like half an hour or more after that specific time (irrespective of what the Heworth Road time stamp may say). If she walked to work then she didn’t get as far as any of the CCTV cameras en route, which would mean disappearing by approx 0530 prior to reaching the Post Office CCTV, as we know she does not appear on that CCTV. This would be well before the Ford Focus brakes sharply in Heworth Road.

As far as I am aware, the police have said nothing about any vehicular activity on Heworth Road between 0515 and 0530, or any such activity around the area covered by the Post Office CCTV?

That alone leaves me feeling that she did not leave home at 0520 that day. The timing of her disappearance simply does not fit with the nature of the other evidence as I see it.

Whereas if she was intending to get a lift from someone then she would leave circa 0540 or 0545, which is a closer time to the activity taking place in the morning, judging from the light levels on the CCTV.

IMO whatever happened to her happened either in or very, very close to her home.

And the police publicise these individuals caught on cctv to invite them to identify themselves and thereby be eliminated. I guess when this doesn't happen, it arouses suspicion.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

And a friend of Martin Dales

 

[Jude Merlin]

"Parking Bays" a very British word.
"Parking Lots" fits better with The American reference of "sidewalks" @Jude Merlin.
Does your reference to the Chemistry department have anything to do with Claudias friend who often gave her a lift-Michael Snelling?

By parking bays I mean the small areas on the road in front of many houses that can be seen on Google maps used for parking cars which I should think are used for residents. Parking lots are usually large areas at malls, shops, businesses etc. that are dedicated specifically for parking a large amount of vehicles. The Chemistry Department reference was just a general reference not aimed at any specific person. A driveway is a driveway in British or American speak.

 

[Jude Merlin]

Maybe our American friend can give lt columbo a bell, he solves the most complex cases imaginable, usually inside 2 hrs, that would get the alarm bells ringing in heworth

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit