UK UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #19

[Officer Dibble]

I think we are going round in circles .
All these things get brought out again and again because the police never seem to come back to the informant denying or confirming what they’ve done with the info !
Give you one personal example : police interviewed me 3 years after CL disappeared.
Then about 3 weeks later I ring one of the officers re update and get told
my info is still relevant .
And I think I’m luckier than most … got some sort of a response .
I’ve come to the conclusion that it is a hopeless case until someone stands up saying they’ve killed her or partner repeating what they actually know and not hearsay !

I'm sorry but the part about someone claiming to recognise their partner as the man who goes around the back of Claudia's house is not old news. JMO MOO. Unless I'm behind the times? Happy to be corrected

 

[vekoma]

New detective being assigned to the case now. Hopefully a new set of eyes and some fresh impetus!

New twist in Claudia Lawrence missing probe as new detective assigned to case

New senior detective has taken over the North Yorkshire Police investigation

www.leeds-live.co.uk

 

[Alpha Zero]

Sorry for the long post but I have a few theories as to what happened but as with all things on the internet you don’t know what to think.
I take things I see very lightly and never as gospel but looking at recent YouTube comments and Reddit posts a lot of things line up for me. I also have questions too.

Why are the police or people asking who the “lurker” is? As far as I’m aware he’s been identified as AC and not the landlord as many people suggest, this is known because he was a regular in the Nags and has an easily identifiable gait as he limps, everyone in York apparently knows this and as the usual saying goes is “common knowledge” . He was the one that dobbed the other 3 in with him and the reason you have 4 suspects instead of one. My theory on him is that he went round to collect certain items, possibly to just get rid of evidence, or perhaps he walked Claudias route to work and dumped the items to give police and us the opinion she was snatched on her way there and did leave for work after all, when she more than likely didn’t.

The main theory is obviously related to her relationships and possible jealousy, that’s arguably what you could say is the motive, but why would 4 people be involved over that?
One theory I never entertained was the cover up theory, where there was an individual with significant power or control in the area calling the shots and that if it got out about him being any way responsible then the proverbial would hit the fan, possibly a police officer. I think in regards to this, PLs spokesperson MD is a very shady character after listening to the answers for Claudia podcast despite his obituary saying he was a great man.

<modsnip>

She was clearly being followed, you can see the red van parked up at the university which miraculously leaves as she leaves, and miraculously drives past Melrosegate, the possible same day she gets taken out.

Does anyone find it strange that Peter and Joan never spoke, does anyone find it strange that it seems the whole investigation went through Peter and his spokesperson, MD? Almost like he wanted complete control over it so nothing got out? Also this person as far as I’m aware has political connections and was mayor of Malton. Was he trying to manipulate or extort money from Peter and his daughter was the collateral but it went wrong ? The recent answers for Claudia episode said a woman who apparently was claudias double if not her was spotted on the A1 stood in the middle of the road like she was lost and needing help? Was this a kidnap attempt gone wrong and they went back to finish the job ?

Again, this case gives me more questions than answers, and of course it could just be a simple case of a woman having many partners and people getting annoyed, but 4 people involved over jealousy? That never sits right with me

 

[davidt]

That is the only episode I listened to and I decided after that, not to listen to further episodes. The claims made against PL by JL were untrue and could easily have been verified as untrue by the 'journalist'.

Sorry for the late response to you. That particular episode did stand out from tbe others as it contained so much in terms of actual claims and to me implying a lot more besides. I'm doing this off the top of my head but could you confirm if everything claimed was untrue if I list what I remember.

1. When CL disappeared PL did not check with other family members but instead contacted the police straightaway.

2. The photo issued by PL was out of date as she had cut her hair and had changed its colour.

3. When PL died he was considerably in debt. Episode as far as I remember did not mention a figure.

4. A fund was set up but not registered and the whereabouts of the money raised is unknown.

5. JL was sidelined and effectively kept out by PL and his friend.

Is it possible to confirm which of the above claims were untrue?

In addition to the actual claims other comments were raised. JK was asked what PL was like and she replied with words to the effect she had never seen him act untowards Claudia. At face value a bizarre response and something you would say if a specific allegation had been made.

Episode said there was other information they did not include as they couldn't verify it. By implication they are claiming the stuff they did include had been verified.

On another episode its mentioned about journalists etc being threatened and warned off. It did mention a Sky reporter and I have found his report confirming it from 2015. Claudia Lawrence Mystery Has Dark Undercurrents I also note he pointedly mentions the company Claudia kept.

Meanwhile, journalists were finding the story hard to tell. For a privately-educated daughter of a country solicitor Claudia had some unusual acquaintances and this remains the only missing person case where I've been warned off or threatened - not once, but twice.

Its also clear the divorce befween JL and PL was not amicable and may colour JLs comments somewhat.

 

[Popejohn3]

Well when I first looked at the case many years ago - I thought there was a possibility but small. I think over the years, some sleuths which have come along with some totally whacky posts have actually provided new thought. I will name one such person “keep it real” they suggested the bus cctv was a game changer and although I couldn’t get my head around his suggestions they did provide with some tips regarding viewing visual information. It started to make me think that there was a possibility that more information was available than first thought.

I think since Christmas 2022 I have thought on a number of occasions that yes this could be solved. I don’t think the team are a million miles away and also just being able to rule out a morning scenario and focus on the bus cctv - Heworth between 7.00pm to 9.30pm is where your answers lay in my opinion. There’s people on this thread who have a good idea what happened but wouldn’t want to stand up
In court I’m sure .

Sorry for the long post but I have a few theories as to what happened but as with all things on the internet you don’t know what to think.
I take things I see very lightly and never as gospel but looking at recent YouTube comments and Reddit posts a lot of things line up for me. I also have questions too.

Why are the police or people asking who the “lurker” is? As far as I’m aware he’s been identified as AC and not the landlord as many people suggest, this is known because he was a regular in the Nags and has an easily identifiable gait as he limps, everyone in York apparently knows this and as the usual saying goes is “common knowledge” . He was the one that dobbed the other 3 in with him and the reason you have 4 suspects instead of one. My theory on him is that he went round to collect certain items, possibly to just get rid of evidence, or perhaps he walked Claudias route to work and dumped the items to give police and us the opinion she was snatched on her way there and did leave for work after all, when she more than likely didn’t.

The main theory is obviously related to her relationships and possible jealousy, that’s arguably what you could say is the motive, but why would 4 people be involved over that?
One theory I never entertained was the cover up theory, where there was an individual with significant power or control in the area calling the shots and that if it got out about him being any way responsible then the proverbial would hit the fan, possibly a police officer. I think in regards to this, PLs spokesperson MD is a very shady character after listening to the answers for Claudia podcast despite his obituary saying he was a great man.

What I have seen in regards to comments could be absolute waffle but some caught my eye.

<modsnip>

She was clearly being followed, you can see the red van parked up at the university which miraculously leaves as she leaves, and miraculously drives past Melrosegate, the possible same day she gets taken out.

Does anyone find it strange that Peter and Joan never spoke, does anyone find it strange that it seems the whole investigation went through Peter and his spokesperson, MD? Almost like he wanted complete control over it so nothing got out? Also this person as far as I’m aware has political connections and was mayor of Malton. Was he trying to manipulate or extort money from Peter and his daughter was the collateral but it went wrong ? The recent answers for Claudia episode said a woman who apparently was claudias double if not her was spotted on the A1 stood in the middle of the road like she was lost and needing help? Was this a kidnap attempt gone wrong and they went back to finish the job ?

Again, this case gives me more questions than answers, and of course it could just be a simple case of a woman having many partners and people getting annoyed, but 4 people involved over jealousy? That never sits right with me

Re first part ‘he walked her route dropping her stuff or something like that .. then the police would have seen him on cctv

 

[Alpha Zero]

Re first part ‘he walked her route dropping her stuff or something like that .. then the police would have seen him on cctv

They do as far as I’m aware , I also think the mysterious figure caught on the cctv at Melrosegate early morning was him too, and he’s smoking, and he’s got a limp. The police have tonnes of cctv we aren’t privy to , as mentioned by someone who worked on the case years ago

 

[Nikynoo]

Sorry for the late response to you. That particular episode did stand out from tbe others as it contained so much in terms of actual claims and to me implying a lot more besides. I'm doing this off the top of my head but could you confirm if everything claimed was untrue if I list what I remember.

1. When CL disappeared PL did not check with other family members but instead contacted the police straightaway.

2. The photo issued by PL was out of date as she had cut her hair and had changed its colour.

3. When PL died he was considerably in debt. Episode as far as I remember did not mention a figure.

4. A fund was set up but not registered and the whereabouts of the money raised is unknown.

5. JL was sidelined and effectively kept out by PL and his friend.

Is it possible to confirm which of the above claims were untrue?

In addition to the actual claims other comments were raised. JK was asked what PL was like and she replied with words to the effect she had never seen him act untowards Claudia. At face value a bizarre response and something you would say if a specific allegation had been made.

Episode said there was other information they did not include as they couldn't verify it. By implication they are claiming the stuff they did include had been verified.

On another episode its mentioned about journalists etc being threatened and warned off. It did mention a Sky reporter and I have found his report confirming it from 2015. Claudia Lawrence Mystery Has Dark Undercurrents I also note he pointedly mentions the company Claudia kept.

Meanwhile, journalists were finding the story hard to tell. For a privately-educated daughter of a country solicitor Claudia had some unusual acquaintances and this remains the only missing person case where I've been warned off or threatened - not once, but twice.

Its also clear the divorce befween JL and PL was not amicable and may colour JLs comments somewhat.

in answer to your numbered questions.

1. When CL disappeared PL did not check with other family members but instead contacted the police straightaway. This was according to Joan, yes? I do not see this as a big issue. Claudia was supposed to meet her friend the prior night and did not show up, so the friend called Peter when she couldn't get hold of Claudia the next morning. After establishing that Claudia was not at home, not at work, he called the Police. I cannot see how those actions are unreasonable. My understanding is that Peter undertook crime work earlier in his legal career, so he probably had some inkling that Claudia had come to harm, as she was not where she was supposed to be.

2. The photo issued by PL was out of date as she had cut her hair and had changed its colour.
My take on this, is that the photo was one that Peter had close to hand (perhaps one that he carried with him or one that he had on display at his home). I do not think it nefarious that this photo was used. I do think that the Police should have ascertained whether this photo was a recent depiction of Claudia and if not, changed it out for a different photo.

3. When PL died he was considerably in debt. Episode as far as I remember did not mention a figure.
I can confirm that this is untrue. I found and downloaded probate records which confirmed the opposite was true.

4. A fund was set up but not registered and the whereabouts of the money raised is unknown.
I am not sure what JL is referring to. Was it the Missing People fundraising Peter undertook?

5. JL was sidelined and effectively kept out by PL and his friend.
JMO, reading between the lines, watching JL interviews, I am not suprised.

In respect to PL and JL's relationship, JMO again, but I suspect that the marriage ending was not a happy ending. Some people just cannot stay friends when their marriages end. I cannot say more unfortunately.

I am not sure about the threats that journalists received, it could be something as simple as they had enough, and told them to PO.

I do think it was someone that Claudia knew. It needs to be someone who was able to dispose of her body and/or belongings around about lunchtime the day she went missing. So, perhaps someone on their lunch break? which means that Claudia was disposed of closeby (if its my prime suspect).

 

[Nikynoo]

Sorry for the long post but I have a few theories as to what happened but as with all things on the internet you don’t know what to think.
I take things I see very lightly and never as gospel but looking at recent YouTube comments and Reddit posts a lot of things line up for me. I also have questions too.

Why are the police or people asking who the “lurker” is? As far as I’m aware he’s been identified as AC and not the landlord as many people suggest, this is known because he was a regular in the Nags and has an easily identifiable gait as he limps, everyone in York apparently knows this and as the usual saying goes is “common knowledge” . He was the one that dobbed the other 3 in with him and the reason you have 4 suspects instead of one. My theory on him is that he went round to collect certain items, possibly to just get rid of evidence, or perhaps he walked Claudias route to work and dumped the items to give police and us the opinion she was snatched on her way there and did leave for work after all, when she more than likely didn’t.

The main theory is obviously related to her relationships and possible jealousy, that’s arguably what you could say is the motive, but why would 4 people be involved over that?
One theory I never entertained was the cover up theory, where there was an individual with significant power or control in the area calling the shots and that if it got out about him being any way responsible then the proverbial would hit the fan, possibly a police officer. I think in regards to this, PLs spokesperson MD is a very shady character after listening to the answers for Claudia podcast despite his obituary saying he was a great man.

What I have seen in regards to comments could be absolute waffle but some caught my eye.

<modsnip>

She was clearly being followed, you can see the red van parked up at the university which miraculously leaves as she leaves, and miraculously drives past Melrosegate, the possible same day she gets taken out.

Does anyone find it strange that Peter and Joan never spoke, does anyone find it strange that it seems the whole investigation went through Peter and his spokesperson, MD? Almost like he wanted complete control over it so nothing got out? Also this person as far as I’m aware has political connections and was mayor of Malton. Was he trying to manipulate or extort money from Peter and his daughter was the collateral but it went wrong ? The recent answers for Claudia episode said a woman who apparently was claudias double if not her was spotted on the A1 stood in the middle of the road like she was lost and needing help? Was this a kidnap attempt gone wrong and they went back to finish the job ?

Again, this case gives me more questions than answers, and of course it could just be a simple case of a woman having many partners and people getting annoyed, but 4 people involved over jealousy? That never sits right with me

• Why would anyone want to blackmail Peter?
• do you have links re the red van?
• Peter and Joan - why would they need to speak? Their divorce appears to have been acrimonious and you can see from the podcast, that JL has nothing good to say about PL. My understanding is that Peter practised Criminal Law earlier in his career, so I would have thought he was the better of the two to liaise with police.
• Joan was Mayor of Malton Joan Lawrence becomes Malton’s new Town Mayor.
• To be honest, a lot of the podcast is journalistic puff. Its good for getting people interested in the case, and raising its profile, but I wouldn't rely on everything being 'reported' as 'true' nor 'accurate'.

 

[Alpha Zero]

• Why would anyone want to blackmail Peter?
• do you have links re the red van?
• Peter and Joan - why would they need to speak? Their divorce appears to have been acrimonious and you can see from the podcast, that JL has nothing good to say about PL. My understanding is that Peter practised Criminal Law earlier in his career, so I would have thought he was the better of the two to liaise with police.
• Joan was Mayor of Malton Joan Lawrence becomes Malton’s new Town Mayor.
• To be honest, a lot of the podcast is journalistic puff. Its good for getting people interested in the case, and raising its profile, but I wouldn't rely on everything being 'reported' as 'true' nor 'accurate'.

Point 1 - he had money, a lot of money and possibly had access to land or knew someone with access to land that the perpetrators wanted, this is a crime I think that’s also related to property ownership/ land ownership.

Point 2 - You can see the cctv footage of Claudia being followed by the red van, she even almost pretends to post a letter to get out of view of it

Point 3 - regardless of your feelings towards your ex partner or wife/ husband, parents that don’t come together to find their missing daughter is extremely bizarre and not normal. Why wouldn’t they ? Peter gave out information that was incorrect and the images of Claudia were with the wrong hair colour , almost as if they didn’t want her to be found

Point 4 - MD was mayor of Malton…. twice ….and was chairman and trustee of the conservative association, with a lot of connections

Point 5 - agree, although I think some parts of it bring new information

 

[Nikynoo]

Point 1 - he had money, a lot of money and possibly had access to land or knew someone with access to land that the perpetrators wanted, this is a crime I think that’s also related to property ownership/ land ownership.

Point 2 - You can see the cctv footage of Claudia being followed by the red van, she even almost pretends to post a letter to get out of view of it

Point 3 - regardless of your feelings towards your ex partner or wife/ husband, parents that don’t come together to find their missing daughter is extremely bizarre and not normal. Why wouldn’t they ? Peter gave out information that was incorrect and the images of Claudia were with the wrong hair colour , almost as if they didn’t want her to be found

Point 4 - MD was mayor of Malton…. twice ….and was chairman and trustee of the conservative association, with a lot of connections

Point 5 - agree, although I think some parts of it bring new information

1. Where did you get this information from? What is a lot of money?
2. hmmm
3. What information is incorrect? An updated picture (Claudia as Bridesmaid) was released early in the investigation. The reasoning for the blonde photo being distributed by the media was probably to feed the storyline of her supposed lifestyle. As for her parents not communicating, I have my theories, but cannot post it here.
4. I don't understand this one I'm afraid - what is the connection to Peter?

 

[Alpha Zero]

1. Where did you get this information from? What is a lot of money?
2. hmmm
3. What information is incorrect? An updated picture (Claudia as Bridesmaid) was released early in the investigation. The reasoning for the blonde photo being distributed by the media was probably to feed the storyline of her supposed lifestyle. As for her parents not communicating, I have my theories, but cannot post it here.
4. I don't understand this one I'm afraid - what is the connection to Peter?

1. we are talking hundreds of thousands, he was fairly well off but not when he passed away ( makes you think where his money went )

3. Happy to discuss elsewhere as I’d love to hear your theory on this
4. The blackmail theory ties in to this that he was being extorted for money, the money for the Gone book deal apparently went straight to MD too. It also aligns with the cover up theory. A man in his position could cover a lot up including getting the police on side

 

[Nikynoo]

1. we are talking hundreds of thousands, he was fairly well off but not when he passed away ( makes you think where his money went )

3. Happy to discuss elsewhere as I’d love to hear your theory on this
4. The blackmail theory ties in to this that he was being extorted for money, the money for the Gone book deal apparently went straight to MD too. It also aligns with the cover up theory. A man in his position could cover a lot up including getting the police on side

His estate was over £500k when he died. He lived modestly (as least from when he moved to York). Solicitors in small country towns do not earn big money. I'm really interested why you think this? Where have you got this information from?

The same for 4. where have you gotten this information from. Neil Root was the Author and donated 35% of his royalties to the Missing Persons Charity.

When you say 'a man in his position', who are you referring to?

 

[vekoma]

A question for those who have good knowledge of the case…..

Were the searches around the heslington back roads (common lane and the outgang) based solely on the hoax caller or were there other reasons the police were looking around here?

 

[Alpha Zero]

A question for those who have good knowledge of the case…..

Were the searches around the heslington back roads (common lane and the outgang) based solely on the hoax caller or were there other reasons the police were looking around here?

A travellers site at outgang lane was being searched by police because they had intel that weapons and drugs were being sourced from here, you can also use Google ( last time I checked , to go back in time to around the time Claudia went missing and a Scania low loader/ vehicle removal truck is visible. There were reports this could have been used to get rid of a vehicle or van involved in her disappearance. I’m not sure if she was seeing a traveller but I suppose it could tie in to this, or these are just individuals that the perpetrators know who can make people disappear

 

[Alpha Zero]

I went to medical school at York, the med school building was completed the same year she went missing and the rumour was that she was buried in the foundations there.

I’ve never heard that one before, is the med building on the University campus ? What made people think she’s there , or is it just because they were building it at the time?.

I think there was a tonne of building work going on during that time in York and Malton, especially new houses. I just think it would be so risky trying to take someone there I can’t ever vision anyone risking that considering it seems so well planned. Having said that, they aren’t going to tear up a huge complex are they

 

[lizziginne]

I’ve never heard that one before, is the med building on the University campus ? What made people think she’s there , or is it just because they were building it at the time?.

I think there was a tonne of building work going on during that time in York and Malton, especially new houses. I just think it would be so risky trying to take someone there I can’t ever vision anyone risking that considering it seems so well planned. Having said that, they aren’t going to tear up a huge complex are they

Yeah, it's on the same side of campus as the library, up by Alcuin college. Not exactly near where she worked, but could be used as a shortcut.
Not sure where the rumour started tbh.

 

[RCYWW]

I think we are going round in circles .
All these things get brought out again and again because the police never seem to come back to the informant denying or confirming what they’ve done with the info !
Give you one personal example : police interviewed me 3 years after CL disappeared.
Then about 3 weeks later I ring one of the officers re update and get told
my info is still relevant .
And I think I’m luckier than most … got some sort of a response .
I’ve come to the conclusion that it is a hopeless case until someone stands up saying they’ve killed her or partner repeating what they actually know and not hearsay !

The police aren’t going to tell anyone what they have done with the info they have reported in this instance

 

[Popejohn3]

https://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/news/north-yorkshire/news/news/2025/03-march/claudia-lawrence-investigation-16th-anniversary/

That’s it see you next year !

 

[Popejohn3]

https://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/news/north-yorkshire/news/news/2025/03-march/claudia-lawrence-investigation-16th-anniversary/

That’s your lot … see you next year !

 

[FromGermany1]

Actually it seems somehow odd to me, that we since 2009 only are connecting old married men to Claudia, when she had daily contact with so many male (female) students. She was at the time from head to toe a very attractive young woman, chic, well-groomed and fashionable, who was seen by many people. Claudia herself may have had a soft spot for older, married men for unknown reasons, but that doesn't mean, that young men didn't have a soft spot for her. I would have no explanation at all, if it didn't happen. Why do you and I focus on these older men all the time? Just rhetorical.