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

[JimmyDurham]

We dont know that she was killed outdoors though! Could have been her home or someone elses home

Agreed. That's why I said probably based upon the known information.

No sign of a disturbance in her home.

'Took the things she generally needed for work and left behind the things she generally didn't need for work. Crucially, her jewelry. The vast, vast majority of women going to meet a man somewhere will be wearing their jewelry. The jewelry was more than likely left behind because she was going to the place where it was inconvenient, i.e. work as a chef.

 

[JimmyDurham]

The police have to send evidence to the CPS who decide if a case goes to court. They obviously had some evidence on the four just not enough to meet the CPS threshold. Doesnt mean they were not involved

When you say they obviously had 'some evidence on the four', well, it clearly wasn't any evidence of any significance given that the CPS ruled: no realistic prospect of a conviction.

That's the reality. The CPS basically replied with: a defence lawyer would wipe the floor with what you have here, don't waste your time with this

 

[jackal67]

When you say they obviously had 'some evidence on the four', well, it clearly wasn't any evidence of any significance given that the CPS ruled: no realistic prospect of a conviction.

That's the reality. The CPS basically replied with: a defence lawyer would wipe the floor with what you have here, don't waste your time with this

So on what grounds do you think the four were arrested?

 

[JimmyDurham]

So on what grounds do you think the four were arrested?

That's a good question: what exactly was the basis of their suspicions? It certainly didn't impress the CPS.

Minded of the lass in Hull murdered on a New Year's Eve. The police stuck to what they knew. The lass had walked home from her Mams, the vast majority of women abducted on the streets are done so by someone who lives within a mile of where she went missing. The police focused on that demonstrable information and caught him.

I feel that the York police got caught up in all of the gossip and speculation, and it clouded their judgement.

 

[Nikynoo]

So on what grounds do you think the four were arrested?

The police only need reasonable grounds to suspect someone is involed in a crime - Police powers of arrest: your rights. In many cases people are arrested to preserve crime investigations and more often to rule people out, than rule people in.

I do think that gossip and speculation led to the arrest of the NH4.

I also think that the police had tunnel vision in the first few weeks of Claudias disappearance - and placed too much reliance on the attendees of the NH. I also think that the police added 2 and 2 togther and made 5 when it came to Claudias personal life.

I do think she went missing on the morning and not the evening. I don't think 'alleyman' is relevant (the timing in the morning is way off). I do not think any of the NH are involved. I do think Claudia knew the person involved. I do think that it is likely that the person involved was rebuffed by Claudia.

I do have a list of suspects, and share some of the thinking of @JimmyDurham (Welcome to Websleuths!).

ETA thoughts on arrest

 

[Professor Moriarty]

If you can't get the go ahead to charge, that doesn't mean that your evidence is worthless. It may just mean that there isn't enough of it. The CPS generally only get one chance to prosecute. If the person is acquitted, they've lost the chance to convict him or her.

(Of course, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows a second prosecution where compelling new evidence, such as DNA evidence, becomes available. But the CPS cannot rely on that happening, so they need a strong case.)

We don't know what evidence the police have, but not having a body, a crime scene, or (as far as I am aware) any forensic evidence or useful CCTV makes prosecution very difficult.

I have previously compared this case to that of Alistair Wilson. In that case, the police had a body and a crime scene, but no other useful evidence (as far as I am aware): just a vague description. Finding the gun doesn't seem to have helped: it would if they could tie someone to that gun and show a motive for that person, but that hasn't happened.

Difficult cases.

 

[JimmyDurham]

The police only need reasonable grounds to suspect someone is involed in a crime - Police powers of arrest: your rights. In many cases people are arrested to preserve crime investigations and more often to rule people out, than rule people in.

I do think that gossip and speculation led to the arrest of the NH4.

I also think that the police had tunnel vision in the first few weeks of Claudias disappearance - and placed too much reliance on the attendees of the NH. I also think that the police added 2 and 2 togther and made 5 when it came to Claudias personal life.

I do think she went missing on the morning and not the evening. I don't think 'alleyman' is relevant (the timing in the morning is way off). I do not think any of the NH are involved. I do think Claudia knew the person involved. I do think that it is likely that the person involved was rebuffed by Claudia.

I do have a list of suspects, and share some of the thinking of @JimmyDurham (Welcome to Websleuths!).

ETA thoughts on arrest

Many thanks on the welcome!

I tend to agree with most of this.

In terms of the fella who walked down the street, well, he simply walked down a street like everyone else. No more information than that on the camera. Maybe the tail wagging the dog. We know a lass who lived there was murdered and so we imagine that innocuous, every day activities are somehow important. Same with the 'braking car'. It's a car driving down a street and it's braking: happens in every street in the country.

When you say 'rebuffed by Claudia', do you mean rebuffed for the first time on that morning?

 

[JimmyDurham]

We don't know what evidence the police have

We do know that the 'evidence' wasn't sufficient to get a case into a court of law never mind a conviction. That tells the story. The story it tells is that the supposed evidence would have been laughed out of court.

At least one of the NH4 stated (publicly) that the police had no clue what they were doing and were wasting taxpayers money on a wild goose chase due to confirmation bias. The police didn't reply to that embarrassing public accusation. Nothing to say. No counter argument. Nothing whatsoever to put one of the NH4 in his place.

 

[Nikynoo]

Many thanks on the welcome!

I tend to agree with most of this.

In terms of the fella who walked down the street, well, he simply walked down a street like everyone else. No more information than that on the camera. Maybe the tail wagging the dog. We know a lass who lived there was murdered and so we imagine that innocuous, every day activities are somehow important. Same with the 'braking car'. It's a car driving down a street and it's braking: happens in every street in the country.

When you say 'rebuffed by Claudia', do you mean rebuffed for the first time on that morning?

Possibly, or they could have thought she was leading them on. If it was this scenario, I could see Claudia being killed accidentally vs my other scenario, where it was intentional. (I have at least two working theories) .

The braking car - I have also discounted this, if the timing on the cctv is correct then (based on the timing of Claudia arriving to work the previous morning) was about 45 minutes too late.

 

[JimmyDurham]

Possibly, or they could have thought she was leading them on. If it was this scenario, I could see Claudia being killed accidentally vs my other scenario, where it was intentional. (I have at least two working theories) .

The braking car - I have also discounted this, if the timing on the cctv is correct then (based on the timing of Claudia arriving to work the previous morning) was about 45 minutes too late.

Agreed in that Claudia was long gone on her way to work by the time of the car CCTV.

Just minded of Crimewatch cold cases and the like, when they're eventually caught, and it seems to me that a woman murdered outdoors is usually at the hands of a lunatic whom she does not know and has never met. That's not an empirical study on my part, just an observation, seems that way to me.

 

[wtiger]

why does everyone talk of "the nags head four"??

maybe try thinking about "the nags head two"

in my opinon

 

[JimmyDurham]

Possibly, or they could have thought she was leading them on. If it was this scenario, I could see Claudia being killed accidentally vs my other scenario, where it was intentional. (I have at least two working theories) .

What are your suggestions Niky? Probably not wise to put names up as suspects, but when you say "they" are they work colleagues or some such?

I go with a lone man, but I can see a scenario whereby Claudia was the type who smiled at and was nice with everyone and the wrong person took that the wrong way. Maybe Claudia had no idea that somebody had taken a shine to her, he felt it was reciprocal, he made an advance that morning and Claudia was: "what are you doing?", he kept going and it went haywire and to an extreme.

I reckon the weight of evidence points toward Claudia leaving for work that morning, but what happens from there is guesswork, with the exception of probably not reaching Melrosegate CCTV, at least on foot anyway. If Claudia's body had been dumped/found nearby, I'd conclude that this was another typical opportunist who had never met Claudia. Her body not being discovered nearby is the most compelling piece of information to suggest Claudia knew her killer. Still on the fence on whether or not Claudia knew her killer but these opportunistic predators generally leave a body behind that is found.

 

[FromGermany1]

why does everyone talk of "the nags head four"??

maybe try thinking about "the nags head two"

in my opinon

Man and woman?

 

[Alpha Zero]

This is a monumental flaw when it comes to the Nags Head Four thing. "The police have the evidence and we just haven't seen it."

Don't worry about the public; release your evidence to where it really matters, i.e. a court of law.

They did. They released their evidence, all of it, in an attempt to get a conviction. It got thrown out as a waste of time given no realistic possibility of a conviction.

What does that tell you about the police's supposed evidence that nobody is privy to? It tells you that there is no evidence of any significance being hidden from the public.

They barked up the wrong tree.

If you go back to one of the older threads I believe there is an ex police officer explaining what potentially happened with the CPS regarding “evidence”

The government usually sets stupidly high targets for the CPS because things cost money, and they have to be able to prosecute without any doubt, the evidence submitted by the police as stated by the ex officer was probably “ enough “to cause some progress forward but still didn’t meet the absolute certainty the CPS require to convict and wasn’t enough for them.

This means the evidence hasn’t been refused or tossed aside because it’s not enough, but stored and the case is in limbo until a further piece of evidence comes forward such as a body or new DNA evidence which tips the scale in the favour of the CPS along with existing evidence. Otherwise the CPS go ahead and the people eventually get off, meaning it’s even harder to get them sent down

Also, this officer said something which is basic common logic at this post that the police simply wouldn’t spend the money they have spent on investigations and taking it to the CPS if they were chasing down leads that were a dead end. They have their targets 100% in my opinion and there is already far too much out there to suggest that they are at least responsible or know who’s responsible. I read somewhere they were able to track a few of them because of their sat navs and the cctv footage we aren’t privy to at least confirms they are up to no good . I’d say at least 2 of the nags 4 are possibly the main culprits and the rest accessories, but I’d be amazed if one of Claudias friends if not both of them didnt know what happened to Claudia. Which makes me question their silence if they cared about her so much? There’s obviously some level of intimidation here

There seems to be a lot of people defending the nags 4 argument as nonsense on forums even though the mass amount of information out there at least points to these people for either being responsible, or knowing who’s responsible.

It’s at least more plausible than a random attacker, or being Halliwell or Couzens that’s for sure

 

[JimmyDurham]

“to cause some progress forward but still didn’t meet the absolute certainty the CPS require to convict and wasn’t enough for them.

This isn't correct. The CPS does not require 'absolute certainty'. The CPS proceeds where there is a realistic chance of a conviction. In other words: where there is no realistic chance of a conviction, the CPS rejects the case.

What does: "no realistic chance of a conviction" mean in layman's terms?

It’s at least more plausible than a random attacker, or being Halliwell or Couzens that’s for sure

Actually, it's nowhere near more plausible than a 'random attacker'. Not remotely.

 

[Alpha Zero]

This isn't correct. The CPS does not require 'absolute certainty'. The CPS proceeds where there is a realistic chance of a conviction. In other words: where there is no realistic chance of a conviction, the CPS rejects the case.

What does: "no realistic chance of a conviction" mean in layman's terms?



Actually, it's nowhere near more plausible than a 'random attacker'. Not remotely.

You’re absolutely right that the CPS doesn’t require absolute certainty, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I used that phrase loosely to express that the CPS threshold wasn’t met in this case because usually they operate at a level where they do want absolute certainty in their minds because they want a perfect record. A no "realistic prospect of conviction,"is an inability to prove something beyond all doubt.

As for plausibility — I still believe that certain named individuals, given proximity, opportunity, and background, remain more plausible than a completely random attacker. She didn’t even leave for work that morning that has already as far as I’m aware basically been proven over the years , so how can she be abducted by a stranger or attacked by a random individual when she wasn’t even walking to work in the first place

The police know more about this case than you or I , and my point stands. The police do NOT spend the money they have on resources if they think are wrong, you can argue all day about that but what I’m saying is pure facts

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I agree with Alpha Zero. The fact that the CPS don't agree to charging someone doesn't mean that evidence would be laughed out of court: it just means that the CPS don't think it strong enough. As I previously said, you only get one chance to prosecute someone (unless, exceptionally, very powerful new evidence becomes available later).

I also think that Claudia was abducted the evening before she failed to turn up to work. Again, I think that Nag's Head customers are, at least, involved. Of course, Nag's Head people, questioned by police will be critical of the police.

Whoever is responsible seems to have had the means to make Claudia's body disappear and stay disappeared, which I think makes a random nutcase less likely. Random nutcases are also unlikely to be roaming about early in the morning and, in Claudia's case, the random nutcase would have needed a vehicle.

Police have commented that it is very unusual for a women to be abducted from the street.

I think it more likely that Claudia left her home, willingly or unwillingly, the evening before she failed to turn up at work, giving the murderer(s) plenty of time to do what he (or they) did before the alarm was raised.

 

[JimmyDurham]

A no "realistic prospect of conviction,"is an inability to prove something beyond all doubt.

This isn't correct, Alpha.

Beyond reasonable doubt is the measure applied by criminal courts; it's not a measure applied by the CPS. The CPS weigh up the evidence put before them and consider whether or not the evidence is a reasonable case against the defendants, including in the public interest to proceed.

The evidence wasn't reasonable; it wasn't in the public interest to pursue this case because it would have been a waste of taxpayers' money, i.e. laughed out of court.

Long story short: there is no magic evidence somewhere unavailable to the public; the police put it all forward and it didn't even make it into a court of law.

I still believe that certain named individuals, given proximity, opportunity, and background, remain more plausible than a completely random attacker.

I'd disagree.

Strangers do in fact murder women walking the streets when it's dark. Crimewatch is full of these types of crimes. They're rare, fair enough, but statistically they're far more common than the Nags Head Four theory.

Regarding the NH4, there are all sorts of convoluted theories involved with this: cover ups, clean up operations, look outs captured on CCTV, scorned lovers, Claudia the harlot, nigh on 15 years of collective silence.

When did you hear of such a scenario in the real world? I can point you to boatloads of cases involving strangers murdering women when walking alone in the dark, but can you point me to just one case that is similar to the theory surrounding the NH4?

I'm confident in stating that, plausibly, this is much more likely to have been a stranger than the theories surrounding the NH4. It is probably a lone man, but not necessarily a stranger, I'm on the fence on that one. As said earlier, I'd have expected a body to have been found in the event of a stranger.

She didn’t even leave for work that morning that has already as far as I’m aware basically been proven over the years

This is wildly inaccurate. The weight of evidence lends towards Claudia leaving for work in the morning. Not proven nor certain, but probable.

The police do NOT spend the money they have on resources if they think are wrong, you can argue all day about that but what I’m saying is pure facts

The police are not infallible. We have a lot of evidence demonstrating that point.

 

[jackal67]

If you go back to one of the older threads I believe there is an ex police officer explaining what potentially happened with the CPS regarding “evidence”

The government usually sets stupidly high targets for the CPS because things cost money, and they have to be able to prosecute without any doubt, the evidence submitted by the police as stated by the ex officer was probably “ enough “to cause some progress forward but still didn’t meet the absolute certainty the CPS require to convict and wasn’t enough for them.

This means the evidence hasn’t been refused or tossed aside because it’s not enough, but stored and the case is in limbo until a further piece of evidence comes forward such as a body or new DNA evidence which tips the scale in the favour of the CPS along with existing evidence. Otherwise the CPS go ahead and the people eventually get off, meaning it’s even harder to get them sent down

Also, this officer said something which is basic common logic at this post that the police simply wouldn’t spend the money they have spent on investigations and taking it to the CPS if they were chasing down leads that were a dead end. They have their targets 100% in my opinion and there is already far too much out there to suggest that they are at least responsible or know who’s responsible. I read somewhere they were able to track a few of them because of their sat navs and the cctv footage we aren’t privy to at least confirms they are up to no good . I’d say at least 2 of the nags 4 are possibly the main culprits and the rest accessories, but I’d be amazed if one of Claudias friends if not both of them didnt know what happened to Claudia. Which makes me question their silence if they cared about her so much? There’s obviously some level of intimidation here

There seems to be a lot of people defending the nags 4 argument as nonsense on forums even though the mass amount of information out there at least points to these people for either being responsible, or knowing who’s responsible.

It’s at least more plausible than a random attacker, or being Halliwell or Couzens that’s for sure

I agree 100%

 

[JimmyDurham]

Whoever is responsible seems to have had the means to make Claudia's body disappear and stay disappeared, which I think makes a random nutcase less likely.

I'd agree with this (in the absence of a well thought through theory). At a stretch, an opportunistic killer uses a river and finds something nearby to weigh down Claudia's body, unlikely.

Random nutcases are also unlikely to be roaming about early in the morning and, in Claudia's case, the random nutcase would have needed a vehicle.

Aye, probably needed a vehicle and that time of the morning wouldn't have been for your standard prowler, unless it was someone leaving a club and driving half cut or someone who worked night shifts. Again, unlikely.

Police have commented that it is very unusual for a women to be abducted from the street.

That may be true, but it doesn't tell the full story given that you can only assess the merit of an option in relation to the other options.

Murder of women is rare in general. We don't have that many lunatics wandering around or in relationships that end in murder.

In the event you compare the convoluted theories involving the NH4 with women walking alone in the dark and being murdered, well, I can tell you which one of the two is proven, by statistics, to be much more likely. It isn't the NH4 scenario.

It is true that most women murdered are murdered in somebody's home, but that doesn't support the NH4 theory. Those women are usually in relationships or have ended a relationship and the man couldn't accept it. In the event you believe Claudia was murdered in somebody's home, which isn't supported by the weight of evidence, then statistically you'd be looking at a current boyfriend, an ex-boyfriend or somebody who wanted to be Claudia's boyfriend; as opposed to some syndicate, clean up operations and cover ups.