UK UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #14

[Popejohn3]

Interesting. So the cold case team accepts the childminder sighting, but denies the lift. And (according to Google maps) the timing stacks up. No lift puts her at the East Parade/Heworth Road junction at around 3.05pm, but with the lift it’s necessary to add a further 15 minute trip out. Discard the lift and we can discard the “missing 15 minutes.”

How the original inquiry came to get a central plank of the Wednesday timeline quite so wrong is another question.

It’s a massive xxxxx put your own words here !

 

[Blonderabbit]

Hmm. So Linda Chapman lied (in some detail) about seeing Claudia Lawrence on the afternoon of the 18th?

Interesting. What was her motivation?

Distraught friends fear missing university chef Claudia Lawrence has been abducted

sometimes people are mistaken, may of been a different afternoon

 

[shadwell]

I guess she confused the day she bumped into Claudia.

Hmm. OK. So we discard the lift and the childminder sighting. Now we can no longer be sure that CL returned home on the afternoon of the 18th. Next up: how certain can we be that the time/date stamp on the Melrosegate cctv was correct?

 

[Popejohn3]

sometimes people are mistaken, may of been a different afternoon

Agreed but when oh when were police going to announce the mistake ..if that what it was ?

 

[shadwell]

Hmm. OK. So we discard the lift and the childminder sighting. Now we can no longer be sure that CL returned home on the afternoon of the 18th. Next up: how certain can we be that the time/date stamp on the Melrosegate cctv was correct?

What was the weather like on the Tuesday afternoon?

 

[Popejohn3]

Hmm. OK. So we discard the lift and the childminder sighting. Now we can no longer be sure that CL returned home on the afternoon of the 18th. Next up: how certain can we be that the time/date stamp on the Melrosegate cctv was correct?

Stop it... the mind boggles !

 

[Pinkizzy]

Agreed but when oh when were police going to announce the mistake ..if that what it was ?

We need to check the North Yorkshire police microsite on a regular basis

 

[Blonderabbit]

Interesting. So the cold case team accepts the childminder sighting, but denies the lift. And (according to Google maps) the timing stacks up. No lift puts her at the East Parade/Heworth Road junction at around 3.05pm, but with the lift it’s necessary to add a further 15 minute trip out. Discard the lift and we can discard the “missing 15 minutes.”

How the original inquiry came to get a central plank of the Wednesday timeline quite so wrong is another question.

Hmm. OK. So we discard the lift and the childminder sighting. Now we can no longer be sure that CL returned home on the afternoon of the 18th. Next up: how certain can we be that the time/date stamp on the Melrosegate cctv was correct?

@shadwell I am on year 2 looking at this in detail, it didnt take me long to realise the discrepancies. its frustrating, however there are some many sources - blogs - facebook pages, news paper articles. you get a Chinese whispers situation. put your frustrations to one side - you seem to be making good progress. assume nothing, believe nothing, challenge everything "as they say"

Hmm. OK. So we discard the lift and the childminder sighting. Now we can no longer be sure that CL returned home on the afternoon of the 18th. Next up: how certain can we be that the time/date stamp on the Melrosegate cctv was correct?

 

[keep-it-real]

Hmm. OK. So we discard the lift and the childminder sighting. Now we can no longer be sure that CL returned home on the afternoon of the 18th. Next up: how certain can we be that the time/date stamp on the Melrosegate cctv was correct?

She was caught on the cctv sited in the house opposite it captured her when she arrived home on weds afternoon

There is no time stamp on the Melrosegate PO footage.
Last known movements of Claudia Lawrence

 

[Pinkizzy]

@Blonderabbit when did you realise the lift and the childminder statements had been removed from the microsite?

 

[Blonderabbit]

@Blonderabbit when did you realise the lift and the childminder statements had been removed from the microsite?

I realised that the lift just could not have happened. and then I doubted the childminder timings, sometime after I looked at the microsite and it had been changed - around June/July last year

 

[Popejohn3]

I think someone is right and playing by the book:
They are assuming nothing, believeing nothing,and checking everything and this someone is cold case guy( s)
They are simply rewriting the Micro site
As if starting afresh!
Let’s hope they don’t get bogged down like the previous investigations !

 

[Popejohn3]

I realised that the lift just could not have happened. and then I doubted the childminder timings, sometime after I looked at the microsite and it had been changed - around June/July last year

Could the lift have happened the previous day ?

 

[UKjester]

Surely the give away is whether she has her rucksack with her when captured on CCTV at the Heworth Junction on Wednesday afternoon.
I did mention Previously that if it captured her heading in the direction of home at around 3:05 it would have captured her 10 minutes earlier if she was walking in the opposite direction.
That now makes more sense that she walked all the way home from work without catching a lift.
If she wasn’t caught on CCTV on the 19th at the Heworth junction or Melrose gate post office (as suggested) then IMO it all centres around the activity between 8:30-9:30pm on the 18th.
I am amazed the NYP micro site doesn’t highlight the changes as revisions.

 

[Blonderabbit]

Surely the give away is whether she has her rucksack with her when captured on CCTV at the Heworth Junction on Wednesday afternoon.
I did mention Previously that if it captured her heading in the direction of home at around 3:05 it would have captured her 10 minutes earlier if she was walking in the opposite direction.
That now makes more sense that she walked all the way home from work without catching a lift.
If she wasn’t caught on CCTV on the 19th at the Heworth junction or Melrose gate post office (as suggested) then IMO it all centres around the activity between 8:30-9:30pm on the 18th.
I am amazed the NYP micro site doesn’t highlight the changes as revisions.

It’s the age old question - 18th or 19th. The rucksack is pivotal. Didn’t happen in her house - rucksacks gone - no screams, no signs of a disturbance, nothing missing apart from the contents of a rucksack, her phone and her.

 

[Blonderabbit]

And here’s a spanner in the works - why the activity in the morning 19th around her house? If she left in the suv elsewhere?

 

[Popejohn3]

Surely the give away is whether she has her rucksack with her when captured on CCTV at the Heworth Junction on Wednesday afternoon.
I did mention Previously that if it captured her heading in the direction of home at around 3:05 it would have captured her 10 minutes earlier if she was walking in the opposite direction.
That now makes more sense that she walked all the way home from work without catching a lift.
If she wasn’t caught on CCTV on the 19th at the Heworth junction or Melrose gate post office (as suggested) then IMO it all centres around the activity between 8:30-9:30pm on the 18th.
I am amazed the NYP micro site doesn’t highlight the changes as revisions.

I still believe the ‘lift’ happened .

 

[Bohill]

@Bohill can I ask If Claudia had been given a lift on the Thurs morn would the most convenient place for her to have been dropped off to walk on to Goldricke College canteen be the place where the two people were seen arguing on University road.

Seperately the location of the similar looking rucksack .. in 2009 was there car parking or access like a wider paved area where a vehicle could have been driven up alongside.

Hi, yea it basically would be. It was surprising for me when I saw where the car was seen because it seems pretty coincidental.

Id say there are two ways you'd be dropped off in order to get to Goodrick College canteen. The first is exactly where the car was seen. The car can then turn round at the roundabout, claudia would walk past where the rucksack was seen and to the canteen. It was early as well so the car could more easily just park there for a moment. The second way is to turn right at the roundabout and go into the university. But it hardly cuts claudias walking time and for the car it would mean turning round there etc.

In terms of the rucksack. There is a car park but its further down, not right next to the bag. The closest you could get by car is the dead end road parallel to University Road. That's if the bag was exactly there.

If something happened there, 6 am is probably one of the best times for it to happen. But still lucky not to be seen.

 

[keep-it-real]

Hi, yea it basically would be. It was surprising for me when I saw where the car was seen because it seems pretty coincidental.

Id say there are two ways you'd be dropped off in order to get to Goodrick College canteen. The first is exactly where the car was seen. The car can then turn round at the roundabout, claudia would walk past where the rucksack was seen and to the canteen. It was early as well so the car could more easily just park there for a moment. The second way is to turn right at the roundabout and go into the university. But it hardly cuts claudias walking time and for the car it would mean turning round there etc.

In terms of the rucksack. There is a car park but its further down, not right next to the bag. The closest you could get by car is the dead end road parallel to University Road. That's if the bag was exactly there.

If something happened there, 6 am is probably one of the best times for it to happen. But still lucky not to be seen.

Thank its good to have your input the college layout appears different in layout today than it was in 2009 due to all the new building that has been undertaken there.
A few more questions if you dont mind.

Can you confirm from this Google shot that the pathways on the right are the ones she would have most probably on her way to the canteen at Goldricke and are these the pathways the same ones which could lead to where the the rucksack was sighted.
These look wide enough to take a vehicle even they were used for that purpose (other than maintenance and emergency vehicles I presume). If a person wanted to drive up those pathways could they arrive at where the rucksack was located and continue on or would they have to turn the vehicle around.

Was the location of the rucksak anyway near a maintenance building used by groundsmen.
Can you bring to mind who would normally be around in the college grounds at that time of the morning, for example security staff, car park attendants, maintenance people.

Mentioning no names of course but was there anyone at the College that female students considered 'creepy'

Seperately I also see a flyover with a walk through on the photo were there always bollards blocking vehicle access through it

And finally how far from the canteen was the construction site and did you notice construction workers using the canteen where Claudia worked on a regular basis

Google Maps

 

[Popejohn3]

Hi, yea it basically would be. It was surprising for me when I saw where the car was seen because it seems pretty coincidental.

Id say there are two ways you'd be dropped off in order to get to Goodrick College canteen. The first is exactly where the car was seen. The car can then turn round at the roundabout, claudia would walk past where the rucksack was seen and to the canteen. It was early as well so the car could more easily just park there for a moment. The second way is to turn right at the roundabout and go into the university. But it hardly cuts claudias walking time and for the car it would mean turning round there etc.

In terms of the rucksack. There is a car park but its further down, not right next to the bag. The closest you could get by car is the dead end road parallel to University Road. That's if the bag was exactly there.

If something happened there, 6 am is probably one of the best times for it to happen. But still lucky not to be seen.

I knew you would be an asset to this site.
And I’d say he was seen but probably from a distance and the witness ( ?) recovered ? Simply saw / took pictures of rucksack ? Or the attacker went back for the items !