Hi, so I’m new here - I’m around a year in of doing intensive research on this case. I have been through this forum, there’s much information that fits my thinking and there’s also much that equates to little green men. This is my take on it, based on my experience of crime in general. Do not rule out the unlikely as you never know.
It’s been brought to my attention the theory of the “New Boyfriend “ and I feel as a starting point it would be good for us to work together to try and rule in or out this possible suspect and who may fit the frame.
Ok - We know that at least two people mentioned the “New Boyfriend” The work colleague D.O. I’m going to call him for this exercise colleague A. Because actually working along side her he is the closet colleague to her. And also ex boyfriend Dan, now we know Dan referred to a new boyfriend sometime in the previous October so in my opinion by the following March he is no longer new. Also by the following March (over the Christmas period of 2008) I’d of expected the new boyfriend to be known by Jen and Suzy and perhaps her parents and wider social circle. He isn’t, Colleague A mentions him a year down the line, we can look at it three ways - it’s true, it’s false, or it’s in there for an ulterior motive.
So let’s move to her rucksack - which I believe is one of the most useful pieces of information- it’s missing - we can only guess the contents. We are led by the police case to think inside was the chef whites and hair straighteners. If this was the case then it’s natural to think she had left her house on the evening of the 18th pots from the day in the sink, taken her rucksack, slippers by the door, bed made as she’s not slept in it and gone to the “new boyfriends house” slept over and then who knows what happened.
Do we have any evidence to dispute this scenario - firstly the straighteners may not of been in the rucksack at all - they could of been broken and binned, they could of been left elsewhere at a married mans house or car etc. Someone may have them unable to disclose not because they have harmed Claudia but because it would compromise them in some way. Another issue with the New boyfriend theory is her calls to her Mum and Dad where she talks about concerns of walking to work - in my mind it illustrates to me that she was thinking of walking to work in the morning. Why at 9 would she leave to elsewhere when she has to be up so early the following morning?
Of course Alleywayman could be the new boyfriend - he could be new as in a relationship but not necessarily new as in new to Heworth I have a possible name for him - he works at another department in the college I’m going to name him for this Colleague B basically because he works in a different department however he is within the (Nags Heworth circle). He appears at 7.15pm and walks to the side and back of her house. There’s a point here - he walks at approximately 1.4 metres a second. If he leaves Claudius front door and walks to 15 Heworth place it would take him one way 2mins exactly. Once on camera when he disappears and reappears he does this in 1min 8seconds so that means he cannot of got as far as 15 Heworth place unless of course he ran outside shot of the camera - which I feel is highly unlikely. So then if you theorise where else he may have gone it matches someone walking down the alley to the rear of Claudius house and back. So in my opinion - the alleywayman isa key suspect. - he appears 7.15pm - he’s on foot and I think he enters the alley with the rucksack on his left shoulder - it’s more obvious when he leaves. Where’s he come from? The nags? He would of left there at around 7.12pm if he was in there, could of he have got off a bus there, arrived in a taxi? Did he visit any of the local shops that evening?
My only other thinking on the “New boyfriend” theory is unfortunately sometimes whist the fairer sex might like you as a friend they sometimes don’t float their boat and I feel it could of been used as a way of managing admirers expectations.
Happy Tier 4!
