I have a few thoughts & ideas, some ideas have already been bought up, but I'd like to add to them and try to understand it from my viewpoint;
On Feb 14th, at around 5:45pm (following the timeline:
Missing Leah Croucher, 19, was having affair with engaged man, family reveal | Daily Mail Online) the location setting was turned off. 15 minutes later, Leah returns home.
(According to the following article:
Missing from Milton Keynes: Leah Croucher the timeline, everything we know so far) Her location settings has never been turned off before.
So from 5:45 on her way home, her location is switched off. Why? Is it ahead of plan for the 75 minutes where her whereabouts are unknown?
When she arrives home at 6, she leaves after telling her mum she's seeing a friend, which we later learn is a lie. At around 7:15, she returns home.
Not only does she lie about seeing her friends, hours before, her location has been switched off. Simply, this just looks like a well thought out plan IMO.
It's Valentines day, she's clearly not going out for dinner or anything as her choice of clothing on that evening was tracksuit bottoms and a long sleeved top. Choice of clothing just looks like a quick talk somewhere outside or in a car.
She leaves the house on foot. 75 minutes is a long time. I think it would be safe to assume she later went in a car.
I get the impression X called the shots of a while ago. By that, I mean he ended any possible relationships with her.
This is where it gets tricky.
Feb 3rd. Leah books a room at Travelodge. Sexual encounter? Or somewhere to talk? She tells her parents she was going to book a hotel room and have a girlie night with two female friends, drinking alcohol and gossiping, which again we learn is a lie.
Summer 2018, she meets X. She sees him evenings, paying 13 quid to go see him. With that, I get the impression she's smitten with him. But I would assume he would at least pay. Maybe he did, and gave her the money beforehand. How far does 13 quid get you from Milton Keynes via a taxi?
I've vaguely worked out that from Milton Keynes to Wolverton the price is around 12 quid via taxi. Could be entirely unreliable (prices may have changed etc,).
If Leah switches off her Location for her 75 minute encounter hours before in advance, it can only be assumed that she knows what she was doing, which points to the fact that she did not want anyone to know about it. Her intention was to return home after that period of time, which she did.
On both Feb 3rd and Feb 14th she tells her parents she's seeing friends. If Leah voluntarily went missing, then that's rather sloppy. She must know that they would be questioned and it would be revealed she wasn't with them. But these two separate occasions where its thought that she went to see X just show that her intentions were to come back home, which she did. Using her friends as a cover-up to her parents show that they did not think much of him and quite frankly she did not want anyone to find out what she was doing and who she was with.
But I would think that she would tell her friends in advance that she was going out to see someone. If you're using someone to cover you, then you would tell them so they're aware if her parents ask. Leah doesn't do this, which makes me believe she wasn't close with her friends to the extent she could share these things. Perhaps she was and this information hasn't been released.
But the phone location is the thing that confuses me. At 5:45 on her way home it's turned off, 6 she arrives home, she leaves almost immediately after. Simplicity is important, reinstating, it looks thought out, the clear message being, no-one should know where you were from 6 to 7:15. And it worked, we don't know where she was for that time frame.
Did she turn it off herself, or was she told to turn it off ahead of the meeting? If so in both matters, why? There is secrecy, because she does return home, she doesn't go missing then, she goes missing the next day.
Feb 15th, 8am she leaves for work like any other day. She take a small black rucksack. Change of clothes?
8:13am she's seen on CCTV walking along Buzzacott Lane in Furzton. That was the last confirmed sighting of Leah.
8:34am her phone is switched off.
21 minutes since she's seen on CCTV, 34 minutes since she leaves home.
Buzzacott Lane is quite a secluded area with several houses everywhere and no CCTV in sight.
"9.30am - 11.15am: Three different witnesses report seeing a girl matching Leah's description walking by Furzton Lake. She was looking 'visibly upset' and crying while talking on the phone. Police have never been able to say definitely that this was Leah."
Outline - Read & annotate without distractions
Buzzacott Lane to around Furzton Lake is 20 minutes by foot. Her last confirmed sighting is on a CCTV at 8:13am.
If we assume that it is Leah, with a 20 minutes time frame to get from last location to the lake would mean that she left wherever she was at around 9am.
Which brings another question, where was Leah from 8:13am to 9am?
9:30 -11:15 again is quite a long time to be walking around a lake seen on a phone by 3 different people. It's clear witness 1 saw her around 9:30, and witness 3 around 11:15, witness 2 saw her somewhere in between.
Furzton Lake is actually quite secluded, quite a narrow walking path. She was waiting for someone here, did they cancel last minute? Might explain the crying and being upset.
So where to from Furzton Lake?
She was involved with X since the Summer of 2018, he was an engaged man.
How naive was Leah?
Supposing AC is X, Leah's brother makes quite a bold statement;
"Was suppose to have court today as I’m attacking Leah’s ex-boyfriend, 27-years-old, married and Muslimwho in our opinion groomed and mistreated her he had mk finest in his name, he *advertiser censored**ed with the wrong people.”
Missing Leah Croucher's brother warned over threats to her married boyfriend after blaming him for her disappearance
Groomed and mistreated is quite a heavy statement to make. Was Leah really that naive or was her brother just exaggerating?
If he did groom her, location services turned off, journeys to him, hotels, hush meetings make sense.
But I find it hard to understand, Leah is 19, despite the books she read and how she's been portrayed by the media, surely she would of differentiated love/grooming/sexually objectified.
If Leah was pregnant, the meeting on Feb 14th could of been the perfect day to let X know. Does he act like its great news and he can't wait?
The following day she's missing. Has X put on a front and got rid of her? The idea of having a baby whilst being married, perhaps also cultural views is utterly horrific in his eyes. Honour killing, therefore more people would of been involved?
But she's crying and upset when being spotted on CCTV by witnesses. Why? is she perhaps talking to X's wife or X himself who suddenly realises in presence of his wife that she must leave him alone. An act again?
What about the phone? Did X give her another phone to contact him on. Untraceable? No evidence of communicating with each other?
It's been a year since she met X, actually being more specific summer of 2018 right up to Feb 2019 is 9 months, why wait that long? She knew he was married, engaged from the get go of meeting him. If anything she found out, or he made it clear. So what was the problem? Did the wife find out? Did Leah threaten to expose him? She has the upper hand if his wife was unaware of his 'affair'. Was he intimidated by this and decided to rid her?
But in both cases, X knew what he was up against. Surely knew that Leah would know that he has a wife, Leah vice versa. Was pregnancy the pushing point?
Or did she find out something else entirely?
