UK UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #13

[Popejohn3]

And I don’t think Claudia is at her fathers in the south of france he he x

Oh if only !

 

[oudzuid]

JK Company up in hartlepool, was there one prior ?UKNIGHT SOLUTIONS LTD - Filing history (free information from Companies House)STERLING TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES LIMITED. Free business summary taken from official companies house information. Free alerts. Registered as 06467774

@Vixey I believe that this Hartlepool Address was an "Accommodation Address" That many companies use as a registered office. This is quite common.

 

[oudzuid]

JK Company up in hartlepool, was there one prior ?UKNIGHT SOLUTIONS LTD - Filing history (free information from Companies House)STERLING TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES LIMITED. Free business summary taken from official companies house information. Free alerts. Registered as 06467774

@Vixey I believe that this Hartlepool Address was an "Accommodation

Wonder if the female who reported a altercation around the back entrance that evening resulted in Dai,s thoughts carried through the back alley ?

Or to a property backing onto 46 Heworth Road @Vixey

 

[oudzuid]

R is not the only member of staff to have left NH since the disappearance of CL. As I said earlier, the place must be toxic.

@Yozzer Yes-Where is "George" Foreman now??

 

[keep-it-real]

Was there a small dark vehicle shown on morning and evening cctv ?

There is also a small dark car on the Melsrosegate PO footage .. the afternoon of Weds 18th

 

[oudzuid]

There is also a small dark car on the Melsrosegate PO footage .. the afternoon of Weds 18th

@Vixey Is that not the car parked outside Limes reception which belongs to the Limes Admin staff and can be seen on most Google Maps but model changes over time?

 

[Vixey]

There is also a small dark car on the Melsrosegate PO footage .. the afternoon of Weds 18th

The small dark vehicle appears in both morning and evening cctv. if the same vehicle of course, hard to tell for sure x

 

[Vixey]

@Vixey Is that not the car parked outside Limes reception which belongs to the Limes Admin staff and can be seen on most Google Maps but model changes over time?

driving heworth road I meant x

 

[Popejohn3]

And I don’t think Claudia is at her fathers in the south of france he he x

Oh if only !

Evidence regarding your statement that is is an assumption please?

In that case I am going to assume you have Guantanamo Bay style information access ! And what is the use of this super doper technology if one cannot use it to take baddies out ?

 

[Blonderabbit]

Answers on a postcard.

The microsite states -
18 March, 14:47 – Claudia walks home and appears to post something.

the next entry is;
18 March, 19:27 – 21:12 Claudia uses her telephone.

Nothing in between.

It has been suggested a childminder saw her at 3.10pm on her way home, its also been suggested the sighting was at 2.50pm by @ourkid. I know there was a suggestion the child minder had seen her on a different day and not the 18th, is there a possibility because the police (may not) be able to verify this sighting and the time so there for its not on the timeline?
It has also been suggested Claudia left her house to post a letter, after arriving home she went back out. Can this be verified? Do we know for sure she re-entered her house?

If she did see the childminder at 3.10pm on the 18th could this of been as she walked home from work, did she have her rucksack and could she of gone to the nags. When the calls were made in the evening could she have already been elsewhere? I feel the reason there is no evidence of a crime is because the crime scene is away from her home. The back alley was not searched for five years, every tom dick and harry could of contaminated her rear garden and the alley over that period. plus the evidence suggests she left by the front door - her slippers there rucksack gone. No signs of a struggle, no screams. The police have evidence "others" were in her house however I do not think it can be time stamped as to when it may have been.

 

[Popejohn3]

Answers on a postcard.

The microsite states -
18 March, 14:47 – Claudia walks home and appears to post something.

the next entry is;
18 March, 19:27 – 21:12 Claudia uses her telephone.

Nothing in between.

It has been suggested a childminder saw her at 3.10pm on her way home, its also been suggested the sighting was at 2.50pm by @ourkid. I know there was a suggestion the child minder had seen her on a different day and not the 18th, is there a possibility because the police (may not) be able to verify this sighting and the time so there for its not on the timeline?
It has also been suggested Claudia left her house to post a letter, after arriving home she went back out. Can this be verified? Do we know for sure she re-entered her house?

If she did see the childminder at 3.10pm on the 18th could this of been as she walked home from work, did she have her rucksack and could she of gone to the nags. When the calls were made in the evening could she have already been elsewhere? I feel the reason there is no evidence of a crime is because the crime scene is away from her home. The back alley was not searched for five years, every tom dick and harry could of contaminated her rear garden and the alley over that period. plus the evidence suggests she left by the front door - her slippers there rucksack gone. No signs of a struggle, no screams. The police have evidence "others" were in her house however I do not think it can be time stamped as to when it may have been.

Why do you not mention her colleague Jo giving her a lift ?

 

[Blonderabbit]

Why do you not mention her colleague Jo giving her a lift ?

?

 

[oudzuid]

Answers on a postcard.

The microsite states -
18 March, 14:47 – Claudia walks home and appears to post something.

the next entry is;
18 March, 19:27 – 21:12 Claudia uses her telephone.

Nothing in between.

It has been suggested a childminder saw her at 3.10pm on her way home, its also been suggested the sighting was at 2.50pm by @ourkid. I know there was a suggestion the child minder had seen her on a different day and not the 18th, is there a possibility because the police (may not) be able to verify this sighting and the time so there for its not on the timeline?
It has also been suggested Claudia left her house to post a letter, after arriving home she went back out. Can this be verified? Do we know for sure she re-entered her house?

If she did see the childminder at 3.10pm on the 18th could this of been as she walked home from work, did she have her rucksack and could she of gone to the nags. When the calls were made in the evening could she have already been elsewhere? I feel the reason there is no evidence of a crime is because the crime scene is away from her home. The back alley was not searched for five years, every tom dick and harry could of contaminated her rear garden and the alley over that period. plus the evidence suggests she left by the front door - her slippers there rucksack gone. No signs of a struggle, no screams. The police have evidence "others" were in her house however I do not think it can be time stamped as to when it may have been.

@Blonderabbit In an earlier post by you. I note that you record that you believe the timeline in the Microsite has been changed.

I have a record pre the microsite change that the following was posted on same site:

"3:05 PM Claudia caught on CCTV at the junction of Heworth Road and East Parade" NYP Microsite.

I also have a record of the cold case team being asked about this where they have provided verbally a different view of this sighting and they say:

"The sighting at the corner of Heworth Road / East Parade was incorrect-The sighting was actually outside of her house and the footage was provided by a private camera opposite her house"

I have located online a reference to why NYP did not use the said footage or shared with public.

Apparently this is because the quality was not good but sufficiently good enough to identify Claudia returning home.

For me it is immaterial whether she saw the childminder or not as a camera identified her returning to her home on the afternoon of 18th March 2009.


What do other Sleuths think?

 

[MEKON]

@Blonderabbit In an earlier post by you. I note that you record that you believe the timeline in the Microsite has been changed.

I have a record pre the microsite change that the following was posted on same site:

"3:05 PM Claudia caught on CCTV at the junction of Heworth Road and East Parade" NYP Microsite.

I also have a record of the cold case team being asked about this where they have provided verbally a different view of this sighting and they say:

"The sighting at the corner of Heworth Road / East Parade was incorrect-The sighting was actually outside of her house and the footage was provided by a private camera opposite her house"

I have located online a reference to why NYP did not use the said footage or shared with public.

Apparently this is because the quality was not good but sufficiently good enough to identify Claudia returning home.

For me it is immaterial whether she saw the childminder or not as a camera identified her returning to her home on the afternoon of 18th March 2009.


What do other Sleuths think?

If Claudia has been identified entering the area via a camera; there is absolutely no point in 'splitting hairs' on which human saw Claudia at the same time as the camera made a positive capture

Expanding on the above:

It may sound obvious; but if the authorities have determined Claudia has entered the area on the afternoon of the 18th of March

Then; have they the ability in a similar or different manner, to determine if Claudia has left the area?

If Claudia did leave the area in a normal fashion; would it be expected that Claudia would be picked up on CCTV ?

 

[keep-it-real]

@Blonderabbit In an earlier post by you. I note that you record that you believe the timeline in the Microsite has been changed.

I have a record pre the microsite change that the following was posted on same site:

"3:05 PM Claudia caught on CCTV at the junction of Heworth Road and East Parade" NYP Microsite.

I also have a record of the cold case team being asked about this where they have provided verbally a different view of this sighting and they say:

"The sighting at the corner of Heworth Road / East Parade was incorrect-The sighting was actually outside of her house and the footage was provided by a private camera opposite her house"

I have located online a reference to why NYP did not use the said footage or shared with public.

Apparently this is because the quality was not good but sufficiently good enough to identify Claudia returning home.

For me it is immaterial whether she saw the childminder or not as a camera identified her returning to her home on the afternoon of 18th March 2009.


What do other Sleuths think?

I found this part interesting:-

I have a record pre the microsite change that the following was posted on same site:

"3:05 PM Claudia caught on CCTV at the junction of Heworth Road and East Parade" NYP Microsite.

When you view the interview with the chidminder on Getty Images she looks to me to be pointing right to left left when speaking to the interviewer was she was suggesting CL had crossed the road from the costcutters side to the other side of the road? If this was the case and she had crossed the road at some point it might well be that she had been caught on cctv?

Just my thoughts.

 

[Blonderabbit]

@Blonderabbit In an earlier post by you. I note that you record that you believe the timeline in the Microsite has been changed.

I have a record pre the microsite change that the following was posted on same site:

"3:05 PM Claudia caught on CCTV at the junction of Heworth Road and East Parade" NYP Microsite.

I also have a record of the cold case team being asked about this where they have provided verbally a different view of this sighting and they say:

"The sighting at the corner of Heworth Road / East Parade was incorrect-The sighting was actually outside of her house and the footage was provided by a private camera opposite her house"

I have located online a reference to why NYP did not use the said footage or shared with public.

Apparently this is because the quality was not good but sufficiently good enough to identify Claudia returning home.

For me it is immaterial whether she saw the childminder or not as a camera identified her returning to her home on the afternoon of 18th March 2009.


What do other Sleuths think?

I do not feel its immaterial - re the childminder. the team have already confirmed she arrived home - its on the microsite - it always has been. There are elements where links are broken, some info has been changed.

I find aspects of the handling of the case now frustrating. you just imagine how much resource is on sleuths trying to resolve this case and yet we do not have a clear version of events.
It is important re the Child minder because if Claudia was seen on camera going into her house at 3.05pm but then the childminder saw her at 3.10pm it means she must of gone back out, so then you need to know if she got back home - can they see this on camera?
if however she "as you state" saw the childminder at 2.50pm then we know she arrived home at 3.05pm. the question is then did she go out to post a letter as you have speculated? and if she did can they see her arriving back?
I do not think it matters and I am drawn into splitting hairs, however her journey home is a walk of 45mins so therefore I cannot see her getting into the sight of the Childminder at 2.50pm. (if she did even see the childminder that day.

 

[Popejohn3]

I do not feel its immaterial - re the childminder. the team have already confirmed she arrived home - its on the microsite - it always has been. There are elements where links are broken, some info has been changed.

I find aspects of the handling of the case now frustrating. you just imagine how much resource is on sleuths trying to resolve this case and yet we do not have a clear version of events.
It is important re the Child minder because if Claudia was seen on camera going into her house at 3.05pm but then the childminder saw her at 3.10pm it means she must of gone back out, so then you need to know if she got back home - can they see this on camera?
if however she "as you state" saw the childminder at 2.50pm then we know she arrived home at 3.05pm. the question is then did she go out to post a letter as you have speculated? and if she did can they see her arriving back?
I do not think it matters and I am drawn into splitting hairs, however her journey home is a walk of 45mins so therefore I cannot see her getting into the sight of the Childminder at 2.50pm. (if she did even see the childminder that day.

Frustration comes to mind here ! Claudia’s journey was a lot shorter time wise that day because she was given a lift !
Anyway the police have said she was at home and left for work in the morning .They do not have to give us proof to every thing they say .
If you know something pass the info to them or crimestoppers .

 

[Popejohn3]

I think ( and I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong) BR is quoting from The Medium post but that post is not Gospel it is the work of a very keen member of the public who ( probably) started it of as his own record and because he got fed up answering questions, he put it out there.
But I’m sure he’ll agree with me it is not Gospel but merrily a work in progress !

 

[MEKON]

If the 2 people were identified who were outside Claudia's house 2 days running: looking like their working in sync, within near enough the same positions at 'interesting times'


Then 'splitting hairs' over exact times Claudia was seen returning from work or arguing whether Claudia was at home or not would be irrelevant


IMO the 2 people's actions are surely too much of a coincidence. Whether the 2 were involved with a deed outside or inside Claudias house; or falsely giving the impression that something happened there is subject of debate

 

[Vixey]

If the 2 people were identified who were outside Claudia's house 2 days running: looking like their working in sync, within near enough the same positions at 'interesting times'


Then 'splitting hairs' over exact times Claudia was seen returning from work or arguing whether Claudia was at home or not would be irrelevant


IMO the 2 people's actions are surely too much of a coincidence. Whether the 2 were involved with a deed outside or inside Claudias house; or falsely giving the impression that something happened there is subject of debate

Absolutely agree, either involved or a distraction/diversion imo x