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

[Nikynoo]

Especially if you had not ventured very far where you were not expected to need money

and you fully expected to return a short time after.......

 

[Popejohn3]

What if she popped out and expected to return later the same evening?

In that case where is her bag? Because if she expected to return ‘later that evening’ she would not have taken her rucksack ?

 

[Yozzer]

In that case where is her bag? Because if she expected to return ‘later that evening’ she would not have taken her rucksack ?

If she had taken some goodies to share like a bottle of wine and some doritos or popcorn she might have thrown them in a bag.

 

[Nikynoo]

In that case where is her bag? Because if she expected to return ‘later that evening’ she would not have taken her rucksack ?

someone came back and took it? or

her hair straightners were already in the bag and that was the purpose for her leaving the house that evening.

 

[Nikynoo]

another question. Claudias boss rang her phone at 10am thursday morning and her phone was supposedly purposefully switched off just after mid-day. Did the phone 'ping' the same tower both times or different towers?

 

[Yozzer]

In the Wikipedia page for this case, it retells the events leading to the discovery of CL's disappearance and states:
'At this point SC [I have deleted the person's surname published in the article] became alarmed and telephoned an acquaintance at Goodricke College to obtain information. The acquaintance told her that Lawrence had not reported for duty on either 19 March or 20 March [citation needed]'
Disappearance of Claudia Lawrence - Wikipedia

I am not familiar with this event in the timeline. Who was the acquaintance?
I note it says 'citation needed' so is not verified. The article goes on to say SC visited CL's house with PL [whereas I understood it was GF who accompanied PL to the house] so it's possible these 2 entries are incorrect. Can anyone throw any light on this please?

 

[Popejohn3]

In the Wikipedia page for this case, it retells the events leading to the discovery of CL's disappearance and states:
'At this point SC [I have deleted the person's surname published in the article] became alarmed and telephoned an acquaintance at Goodricke College to obtain information. The acquaintance told her that Lawrence had not reported for duty on either 19 March or 20 March [citation needed]'
Disappearance of Claudia Lawrence - Wikipedia

I am not familiar with this event in the timeline. Who was the acquaintance?
I note it says 'citation needed' so is not verified. The article goes on to say SC visited CL's house with PL [whereas I understood it was GF who accompanied PL to the house] so it's possible these 2 entries are incorrect. Can anyone throw any light on this please?

Honestly we have someone like Yozzer very interested in Claudia’s case from day one I would guess , surely the people that know the answers to these simple questions would have the courtesy to come here and put the record straight ?

 

[Nikynoo]

another question. Claudias boss rang her phone at 10am thursday morning and her phone was supposedly purposefully switched off just after mid-day. Did the phone 'ping' the same tower both times or different towers?

Answering my own question - I take it there is only one phone mask that covers the entire area?

'Claudia had been due to start her shift at 6am and at the time her manager called, her mobile was in an area that stretches nine miles from the university to Tockwith village.

This area includes her home in the east of York.

The police source told the Sunday Times: “Her mobile phone never left the area of York.'

Claim about Claudia Lawrence's phone described as 'frightening' by her mother

 

[Yozzer]

another question. Claudias boss rang her phone at 10am thursday morning and her phone was supposedly purposefully switched off just after mid-day. Did the phone 'ping' the same tower both times or different towers?

Not known according to this article @Nikynoo
Missing chef Claudia Lawrence mother Joan shocked mobile phone worked hours after she disappeared | Daily Mail Online
The call from her manager placed her handset in a nine-mile area from the university to Tockwith village, including her home in Heworth.
Two hours after the call, at 12.10pm, mobile phone records indicate that Ms Lawrence's phone was switched off, though it is not known where it was at the time. Experts say the records show her phone sent the network a record - known as an 'explicit detachment' - that it was being powered down before being switched off.

 

[Nikynoo]

In the Wikipedia page for this case, it retells the events leading to the discovery of CL's disappearance and states:
'At this point SC [I have deleted the person's surname published in the article] became alarmed and telephoned an acquaintance at Goodricke College to obtain information. The acquaintance told her that Lawrence had not reported for duty on either 19 March or 20 March [citation needed]'
Disappearance of Claudia Lawrence - Wikipedia

I am not familiar with this event in the timeline. Who was the acquaintance?
I note it says 'citation needed' so is not verified. The article goes on to say SC visited CL's house with PL [whereas I understood it was GF who accompanied PL to the house] so it's possible these 2 entries are incorrect. Can anyone throw any light on this please?

This may help -
Why police now fear missing chef Claudia Lawrence was murdered | Daily Mail Online

She didn’t appear for work the following morning, nor did she meet one of her best friends, SC, a 44-year-old administrator, as planned that evening.

When S still hadn’t heard anything the following day, she called Claudia’s father.

He drove the 20 miles from his home in Slingsby, North Yorkshire, and let himself into Claudia’s house with a spare key. It looked as though she had left for work as usual.

The house showed no sign of disturbance and Claudia’s purse, bank cards and passport were all there.

No clothes were missing. The only thing that had gone was Claudia’s silver Samsung mobile phone, her light blue Karrimore rucksack and her chef’s whites.

When Peter called the university and it emerged that Claudia had not turned up for work for the second day in a row, he went to the police.

 

[3ds&p]

Given its most likely that more than one person was involved in or has knowledge of what happened, is it viable, possible or indeed morally acceptable for the police/cps to offer indemnity from prosecution to anyone whom provides information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person responsible? Perhaps a persons conscious can be cleared and lips loosened with such an offer, or are the police relying on a breakdown in a relationship to await further developments do you think?

 

[3ds&p]

A few queries I have, apologies if they’ve been discussed in depth previously -

so the police know from cctv evidence what CL was wearing on her return from work, has it been stated anywhere what clothes were missing from her home after her disappearance?

Were the clothes she was wearing on that day recovered?

Could this indicate when she actually left her house for the final time, after returning from work?

if she went somewhere with her straighteners and a change of clothes (wearing the same clothes she returned home with) on the day she was last seen, surely this suggests she wasn’t present overnight at her home address?

did she usually take her straighteners to work with her in her rucksack?

if she did stay overnight at her home address and was abducted after she left her home on the morning after she was last seen, as PL suspected, is it really feasible that someone would enter her house following her death/abduction to reset it ( hair dye, slippers etc)

 

[3ds&p]

Not known according to this article @Nikynoo
Missing chef Claudia Lawrence mother Joan shocked mobile phone worked hours after she disappeared | Daily Mail Online
The call from her manager placed her handset in a nine-mile area from the university to Tockwith village, including her home in Heworth.
Two hours after the call, at 12.10pm, mobile phone records indicate that Ms Lawrence's phone was switched off, though it is not known where it was at the time. Experts say the records show her phone sent the network a record - known as an 'explicit detachment' - that it was being powered down before being switched off.

Almost as if the person who turned off the phone wasn’t present when it rang at 10, perhaps during their lunch hour they visited the location of the phone and switched it off (could it have been in the boot of a car for example) - wild speculation based on nothing in particular but would explain why it took so long to switch it off?

 

[Yozzer]

Almost as if the person who turned off the phone wasn’t present when it rang at 10, perhaps during their lunch hour they visited the location of the phone and switched it off (could it have been in the boot of a car for example) - wild speculation based on nothing in particular but would explain why it took so long to switch it off?

Yes this is similar to what former DCI Colin Sutton thinks - see towards end of article below:
Missing chef Claudia Lawrence mother Joan shocked mobile phone worked hours after she disappeared | Daily Mail Online

 

[Bagpipes]

Just a thought, or two, but could there be any reason that the phone was left on for a purpose?

Would CL phone provider have a record of incoming calls?

Would all phone network providers be able to easily ascertain if any of their customers had called CL number?

Probably not, I'm naively thinking there could be a database of sorts where the provider types in a number and any customers who have called that number will come up.

 

[Blonderabbit]

What’s probable as oppose to what can you prove in the absence of evidence. “Claudia was a single girl with her own house” if she was engaged in a secret relationship - it’s secret for a reason. Surely she would of entertained at her home - fully furnished warm, comfortable. A married man generally wouldn’t have access to a property other than the marital home.

 

[Vixey]

What’s probable as oppose to what can you prove in the absence of evidence. “Claudia was a single girl with her own house” if she was engaged in a secret relationship - it’s secret for a reason. Surely she would of entertained at her home - fully furnished warm, comfortable. A married man generally wouldn’t have access to a property other than the marital home.

If the person is known locally, perhaps discretion (Hotel/room) perhaps x

 

[Vixey]

Honestly we have someone like Yozzer very interested in Claudia’s case from day one I would guess , surely the people that know the answers to these simple questions would have the courtesy to come here and put the record straight ?

Suzy has spoken on a facebook site previously regarding the location of Claudias bag on the bed as she followed behind PL. so I believe all three entered to look for claudia x

 

[keep-it-real]

What’s probable as oppose to what can you prove in the absence of evidence. “Claudia was a single girl with her own house” if she was engaged in a secret relationship - it’s secret for a reason. Surely she would of entertained at her home - fully furnished warm, comfortable. A married man generally wouldn’t have access to a property other than the marital home.

By the very nature of the relationship being secret there would be a reasonable chance of the man being seen if the man was staying overnight at Claudias, especially if he was local or a well known person in the area people could recognise.

Perhaps the man owned a second home.
Maybe he was a married man that worked away from home and that work came with overnight accommodation.
He could have had a job that allowed him had access to acommodation at a number of locations.. lets say hotel management as an example.

just thinking of all the possible options

 

[Yozzer]

What’s probable as oppose to what can you prove in the absence of evidence. “Claudia was a single girl with her own house” if she was engaged in a secret relationship - it’s secret for a reason. Surely she would of entertained at her home - fully furnished warm, comfortable. A married man generally wouldn’t have access to a property other than the marital home.

Generally being the operative word in this case.