Yes I had a similar problem first time opening the article. It is as follows...
We, the public, will probably never know exactly what is sitting in the police files in North Yorkshire HQ, but we would imagine they make fascinating reading. Having spoken to those familiar with the case, officers clearly have more information and evidence than they are letting on.
In summary, based upon the material gathered during this cold case review, we can only theorise some of the following to those looking for an answer. Ignore the salacious conspiracy theories, this case is much clearer cut than it would first appear.
Claudia was an attractive woman who spent many nights of the week drinking and socialising with older men; it is highly likely her killer was known to her. It is also very probable that her killer was motivated by extreme jealousy, or the rage of unrequited love.
Her killer was able to commit the crime and cover it up without being noticed, this suggests to us that he was likely self-employed and therefore able to spend time away from his place of work and free from the watching eye of his superiors. Several of those suspected of being involved were self-employed and ran their own companies.
We also believe she was killed by a single individual and that his crime was then covered up by friends and family members who protected the perpetrator.
North Yorkshire Police have gathered an extensive file of evidence against certain suspects, we have learned that this includes mobile phone data, eyewitness testimonies, satnav activity and an alleged ‘confession’ among other elements.
However, a lack of body or confirmed crime scene have made it hard for officers to press charges. Crucially, key suspects have also been given alibis by partners and loved ones who have given statements saying to the effect of ‘they never left the house, they were with me’ – making the case for prosecution almost impossible, especially for a cautious CPS.
Why was Claudia drinking in the Acomb area in the weeks leading up to her disappearance, had something happened that upset her?
Claudia had recently booked a holiday to Cyprus to see a ‘close male friend’, was it to escape the obsession of a local admirer? Did that admirer explode with rage after hearing of her holiday plans to meet up with an alleged old flame?
Did that admirer then knock on the front door of her house on the evening of the 18th March 2009 and get no answer?
Did he then walk around the back of the house to the alleyway to see if the light was on in her room, trying her back gate, then walking back and trying the front door again?
If he is the guilty party, then blundering around in front of the CCTV cameras was sloppy in contrast with the swift cover-up that has left police struggling to build a clear case. In the footage, he was carrying a rucksack and walking purposefully, had he just finished work or was he hoping to stay over?
Did he pause for a moment to avoid being seen by a friend who crossed the road? If he is innocent, then why has he not come forward to police?
We know Claudia’s outbound phone activity ceased just over an hour after this footage was captured, it is our belief that this individual entered the house, either through a spare key or eventually coaxed Claudia to answer her door.
A confrontation escalated out of control, perhaps even accidentally, and he then removed her via the rear of the property under the cover of darkness, which would be the best time to commit such as crime without detection.
This rushed scenario would explain why the same man is seen once again lurking around the house at 5am in the next morning. Was he collecting carelessly forgotten items such as her phone or bag under his coat and hiding it, perhaps in one of the neighbouring properties in Heworth place until it could be disposed of later that day? Did he return to clean up the crime scene? Did he call friends or family members to help the cover up?
It is likely the Police have tell-tale phone records of activity such as the ‘chatter’ of texts and calls between those thought to be involved that evening and the next day. The police have also confirmed that several men have left fingerprints inside Claudia's house, despite denying they have ever been there.
The CCTV man was most certainly local to the area and his frequency on camera and knowledge of the area behind Claudia’s house suggests he lived either in Heworth place or one of the surrounding streets and had visited there before.
We believe he has not come forward, because he is guilty and is being protected by a false witness statement, giving him an apparently secure alibi.
In conclusion, it is crystal clear that those close to Claudia Lawrence have been telling lies to police for a very long time and that the identity of the ‘mystery man’ on CCTV is key to the investigation.
She was a prolific texter, who regularly sent messages to friends, yet outbound communication from her phone ceased that evening at 8.23pm.
Moreover, a suspicious individual was captured on CCTV outside her house around one hour before her last known communication.
In response to our submission of enhanced images, North Yorkshire Police emphasised that they would like the man in question to come forward so he can be eliminated from their enquiries.
We now have a clear outline and profile image of this 'mystery man' - we can see he has a dark receding hairline and we believe local people can identify him from this image.
Those who know the identity of this man should come forward and do the right thing.
