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

[JimmyDurham]

And you do not acknowledge there is no evidence she left for work at all.

Well, the only evidence we do actually have is that Claudia probably left for work that morning.

 

[RCYWW]

This doesn't make a great deal of sense.

We all think Claudia was attacked don't we?

What's your question?

Somewhere not far away from home do you think?
What’s your thoughts

 

[RCYWW]

It is strange that, despite all the coverage, Alleyman has not come forward to be eliminated-or has he?

He hasn’t been eliminated he was 1 of the 4 arrested and charged
And arrested and questioned years earlier than the other 3

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Claudia's house is so small that I find it difficult to believe she actually died there without the neighbours hearing anything. I've always believed she left with someone she knew and her death occurred elsewhere. But while I'm not convinced anything happened to her at the house, I definitely don't discount the idea that her home was "staged" afterwards to give a false impression of the true circumstances.

But I had also always assumed--admittedly without evidence--that her death was some kind of unplanned domestic incident. If the person on the CCTV really is involved, and was lurking outside her home when she was known to still be alive texting friends and speaking to her parents, that would strongly suggest there *was* some planning involved.

Claudia being the victim of a "hit" of some kind would be very distressing, and vastly different to a simple liaison gone wrong.

All JMO.

 

[RCYWW]

The difference of opinion is not due to whether or not I have carefully looked at the CCTV and reasonably assessed the information on camera; it's due to your interpretation of the CCTV/information and reasoning capacity.

Essentially, your interpretation is confirmation bias as well as cynically manipulating what you see into something that isn't actually on camera/contained within the information. What you're doing is forcing the information to fit a preconceived theory, as opposed to let the information guide your opinions.



What you see on camera is a man walk across the top of the road and another man stop for a couple of seconds. You do not see a man trying to avoid being seen. You have deduced that from the information on the camera.

It is a possibility, I agree, but there is more information on the camera that suggests he wasn't trying to avoid being seen, as follows:

1) It is in the evening (7pmish). He walked along what has been deemed to be a busy road at that time of the day. That's hardly indicative of a man trying to avoid being seen.

2) Alley man had visibility of walking along the top of the road man a few seconds before he stopped suggesting top of the road man is not the reason as to why alley man stopped. Top of the road man is almost past alley man and obscured by housing when alley man stops.

3) Alley man actually follows top of the road man 'round the same corner, onto the same road and going in the same direction. He's a few yards behind him. Hardly indicative of alley man not wanting to be seen by top of the road man.

On balance, alley man was simply going about his business innocently.



The bookies wouldn't give you any odds, not even a 1,000/1 on.

You know why? Because unrelated incidents within an hour of each other happen all of the time. I mean all of the time. They're happening now, everywhere on this planet, probably in your home right now as you type.

You say: "round the back of Claudia's property". This is a very good example of the information being cynically manipulated to fit a theory.

There were various properties in that small area. He didn't even have time to reach Claudia's back door. From that, you can reasonably deduce that Claudia's property was not the reason for turning off the main road but rather it was some other property, if indeed it was a property.

You make it sound like the CCTV/information demonstrates that alley man was targeting Claudia's property when in fact it demonstrates no such thing. It simply shows that he turned down an area with various properties and given the time he was off camera he did not have time to get to Claudia's back door. That's what the CCTV shows.



'Could be interesting, but did you ask for the source as opposed to take it for granted and regurgitate this social media gossip elsewhere?

Without a source, said rumours are worth nowt (to enquiring, reasonable minds anyway).



Aye, the magic information that nobody has seen. Well, when I say nobody, the CPS saw the lot. All of it. They weren't impressed. Not worthy of entry into a court of law.

A reasonable person would conclude that the magic information that nobody has seen, is no more than made up nonsense to bolster a theory that begins with an Agatha Christie style plot and is heavily bound up with confirmation bias.

I know, plenty do not want it to be another boring, typical 'lone man with a screw loose murders woman' case because people like to come up with all sorts of convoluted theories and conspiracies. 'Takes the interest out of it for many.

I'm afraid though, statistically that is easily the most likely scenario when it comes to how and why Claudia went missing.

You keep using the word statistically, so I will use these statistics regarding femicide “90% of killers of women are family, partners or known to the victim. 61% of women are killed by a current or (and?in this case) former partner. 80% of the killings were committed in the home of either the victim or perpetrator”

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Well, the only evidence we do actually have is that Claudia probably left for work that morning.

That is your interpretation of the evidence. I think the evidence for that is far from probative. My interpretation of the evidence is that it is more likely that she went somewhere in the evening and was abducted or murdered in the evening.

I think it unlikely that Claudia was murdered on the street, or abducted from the street, on her way to work, early in the morning.

What do your statistics tell us about the chances of a woman being murdered or abducted by a nutcase roaming the streets early in the morning, with her body being disposed of or concealed so effectively? I don't think that the Crimewatch cases you mentioned are analogous.

I think that nutcases are less likely to be roaming the streets early in the morning and are unlikely to have a vehicle to hand.

Something in the evening is more consistent with the text from Claudia to her friend Jen King saying:

“Bloody hell, I’ve got to do 12 days on the trot, early mornings too. No fun for me”

This text omitted the "X" that Claudia normally put at the end of her texts and she did not have to work 12 days on the trot. It was sent before Claudia spoke to her mother. But was it Claudia who sent it and, if so, why? Odd.

 

[JimmyDurham]

Somewhere not far away from home do you think?
What’s your thoughts

You would have to define: "not far from home".

As I said, I follow the information and let that guide my opinions as opposed to come up with/regurgitate a theory and attempt to force/manipulate the information to fit that theory.

The evidence suggests Claudia left for work in the morning (said solid evidential basis laid out in this thread). Not certain but probable. I let that information guide my opinion in terms of the location where Claudia was attacked.

From there, the evidence is limited. Claudia is not captured on Melrosegate CCTV. It's fair to deduce that Claudia had been attacked before reaching that point or she was in somebody's car (voluntarily or involuntarily).

The next piece of information we have is two possible sightings of Claudia. I am highly sceptical of eyewitness testimony due to its unreliability which in turn is driven by the way the human mind works, e.g. fill in the blanks after the event. The sightings are given some credence in that there was a supposed argument and that gives the eyewitness cause to take notice and remember more and recollect it accurately. Still, on balance, I'm going to go with that woman probably not being Claudia for the reason mentioned in this paragraph.

Then we have the call to Claudia's mobile at 10 in the morning. I believe the polis placed great store in this when considering whether or not Claudia knew her killer. I have already thoroughly debunked the idea that Claudia's mobile was "narrowed down to a few streets". It's also worth mentioning that cell triangulation is not a foolproof science. It should be interpreted with caution and an understanding of its limitations, i.e. cell triangulation can actually place a phone in a place it wasn't (due to various factors). According to The Guardian, Danish authorities had to release 32 people from prison and halt 40 other prosecutions after new evidence showed that the cell phone location data used in their cases was inaccurate. That said, in the absence of any evidence to contradict the polis' statement that Claudia's phone pinged off one cell tower with a 9 mile sector/range, I'm going to assume that it is an accurate estimate in terms of the area/range covering Claudia's phone at 10 in the morning. What does this mean in terms of where Claudia was attacked? In my mind, it's not as significant as Claudia not appearing on CCTV at Melrosegate, but does suggest that Claudia wasn't abducted by a serial prowler and immediately driven out of the area.

Given the information, I would suggest one of two things happened:

1) Claudia was attacked before reaching Melrosegate, either on foot or bundled into a car.

2) Claudia accepted a lift from somebody she knew and was attacked somewhere nearer York University than her home.

You/I/anyone else could write three books full of ideas and supporting reasons on this and so there's not enough bandwidth on this site to go into fine detail in one post.

I would say this has all of the hallmarks of the sort of crime you saw on Crimewatch regularly, i.e. lone man opportunistically attacks woman walking alone in the dark. With the exception of one very significant difference: no body was found.

 

[JimmyDurham]

You keep using the word statistically, so I will use these statistics regarding femicide “90% of killers of women are family, partners or known to the victim. 61% of women are killed by a current or (and?in this case) former partner. 80% of the killings were committed in the home of either the victim or perpetrator”

This was discussed a few pages back.

The pertinent point is that the overwhelming number of women murdered in their home or the acquainted killer's home, are done so at the hands of a lone ex-partner, lone partner or lone would-be partner; and it is the culmination of a long episode of domestic abuse primarily.

The Nags Head Four theory does not fall into that category, and it is in fact statistically highly unlikely to the point of being almost unheard of in the real world.

Feel free to post examples of similar cases to the NH4 theory. I can post boatloads of examples of women being murdered by a lone man with a screw loose, both known and unknown to the victim, both indoors and outdoors.

In the event you believe Claudia was murdered in her home or her acquainted killer's home, then statistically you are looking at a lone man: partner, ex-partner or would-be partner.

A point aside, there are various statistics on this and according to the government's website, the percentage of murderers known to their female victim is lower than what you have quoted (although still a majority).

As ever with statistics, you need to dig beneath the headlines to understand their significance.

 

[FromGermany1]

As far as I remember, the tower range included the Acomb area also ..... And there it was known, that Claudia visited several times during the time before disappearing. PH said otherwise, but.
MOO

 

[JimmyDurham]

That is your interpretation of the evidence. I think the evidence for that is far from probative. My interpretation of the evidence is that it is more likely that she went somewhere in the evening and was abducted or murdered in the evening.

Hmmm, there is solid evidential basis to suggest Claudia left for work that morning, i.e. the known contents of her home and her known actions the night before.

What is known that suggests Claudia "went somewhere in the evening"?

What do your statistics tell us about the chances of a woman being murdered or abducted by a nutcase roaming the streets early in the morning, with her body being disposed of or concealed so effectively? I don't think that the Crimewatch cases you mentioned are analogous.

I've put points forward for this in previous posts. It does happen. We have thousands of missing people, some of whom are women declared dead and a body has never been found, e.g. Suzy Lamplaugh and Helen McCourt who got off a bus less than 500 yards from her home. A cursory glance at the internet will uncover many more.

Are there any examples similar to the NH4 syndicate ferrying bodies 'round in the night, cover ups, clean up operations, nigh on 15 years of collective silence and so on. You'll find a few in Agatha Christie novels but what about in the real world?

Something in the evening is more consistent with the text from Claudia to her friend Jen King saying:

“Bloody hell, I’ve got to do 12 days on the trot, early mornings too. No fun for me”

This text omitted the "X" that Claudia normally put at the end of her texts and she did not have to work 12 days on the trot. It was sent before Claudia spoke to her mother. But was it Claudia who sent it and, if so, why? Odd.

'Certainly inconsistent with Claudia's usual texting style. It doesn't follow that this is a basis to claim Claudia was attacked in the evening. My reading of the content is that Claudia was giving JK the brush off. It certainly does not remotely compete with no forensic evidence of Claudia being attacked in her home, and the items missing from Claudia's home were those that she took to work.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I asked about your statistics for women being abducted early in the morning. Suzy Lamplaugh and Helen McCourt were abducted in the evening.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

The problem with this case is a lack of evidence. We give opinions. There is no probative evidence in the public domain, as to when Claudia left her home, either way. I don't set much store by the issue of chef's whites and hair straighteners. Others may. I don't set much store by the positioning of slippers and the state of her bed. Others may.

Certainly, no one has said that they saw Claudia walking to work in the morning. I have never mentioned the NH4 and Agatha Christie scenarios. But if you discount the NH4 and say that it was a nutcase, abducting Claudia early in the morning, this would be very unusual and he would most likely have needed a vehicle. (So maybea semi nutcase?) The other cases mentioned did not occur early in the morning. It is possible that Claudia was given a lift in the morning or abducted in the morning, but my judgement is that it is more likely that something happened in the evening. No one can be certain, it is a matter of speculation and judgement.

 

[JimmyDurham]

I asked about your statistics for women being abducted early in the morning. Suzy Lamplaugh and Helen McCourt were abducted in the evening.

Women are assaulted/attacked/abducted at all times of the day, including in the early hours of the morning, including those who go missing: e.g. Lisa Dorrian, Leah Croucher (found years later inside a property) and Rachel Moran (found in a property after a polis search of all houses within a half a mile area of her last sighting).

I've no idea what point you're trying to make except an attempt to ignore one glaring fact: when women are murdered in their home or in an acquaintance's home, it is almost invariably at the hands of a lone man (partner, ex-partner so on).

It is also true that the Nags Head four theory is statistically far less likely than a stranger murdering Claudia.

The time of the day is irrelevant to the NH4 theory. It doesn't happen, any time of the day. Strangers murder women at all times of the day outdoors, whether or not a body is found does not detract from that.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

As far as I remember, the tower range included the Acomb area also ..... And there it was known, that Claudia visited several times during the time before disappearing. PH said otherwise, but.
MOO

Am I remembering correctly that one of the ways the police found out Claudia had been spending a lot of time in Acomb was by tracing back through her phone records?

If so, they almost certainly did track her mobile in exactly the way I described in my previous long post. If they could track her phone to Acomb based on previous activity, the idea that they *couldn't* track it any closer than a 9-mile radius on the day of her disappearance would be odd to say the least.

 

[JimmyDurham]

<modsnip - moderating>

it is a matter of speculation and judgement.

This doesn't tell the story:

1) Some theories ignore the known evidence in favour of: speculation; community and social media gossip; "the magic information" that nobody has seen (except the CPS who weren't impressed by the "magic information").

2) Other theories are based upon the known evidence, but concede that the evidence is thin on the ground which leads to a conclusion: probably left for work in the morning but from there it's highly speculative in terms of what happened.

<modsnip - personalizing>

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

The problem with this case is a lack of evidence. We give opinions. There is no probative evidence in the public domain, as to when Claudia left her home, either way. I don't set much store by the issue of chef's whites and hair straighteners. Others may. I don't set much store by the positioning of slippers and the state of her bed. Others may.

RSBBM

I agree with this. How many times, in other cases, have we heard from close friends and relatives that the victim would NEVER do xyz. It would be totally out of character.

And yet, when the truth finally comes out, it turns out they did do those things.

Something like the slippers could be crucial or irrelevant. But without Claudia being here to ask her, it doesn't help much either way IMO.

 

[Alpha Zero]

It is also true that the Nags Head four theory is statistically far less likely than a stranger murdering Claudia.

The time of the day is irrelevant to the NH4 theory. It doesn't happen, any time of the day. Strangers murder women at all times of the day outdoors, whether or not a body is found does not detract from that.

Not true at all that the nags 4 theory is “statistically” far less likely than a stranger. <modsnip>

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

I have already thoroughly debunked the idea that Claudia's mobile was "narrowed down to a few streets". It's also worth mentioning that cell triangulation is not a foolproof science. It should be interpreted with caution and an understanding of its limitations, i.e. cell triangulation can actually place a phone in a place it wasn't (due to various factors). According to The Guardian, Danish authorities had to release 32 people from prison and halt 40 other prosecutions after new evidence showed that the cell phone location data used in their cases was inaccurate.

RSBM

Why don't you post the link to The Guardian's article? I presume it was this one:

Denmark frees 32 inmates over flaws in phone geolocation evidence

Denmark imposes two-month moratorium on use of mobile phone records in trials

www.theguardian.com

You're being very misleading with cherry-picked information. This incident happened in 2019, by which time 3G/4G was much more common. It likely wasn't even the same 2G GSM technology used by Claudia's phone in 2009.

Moreover, the issue was a flaw with the software the Danish police were using. Since you insist everyone else sticks to only what they can prove, can you prove the North Yorkshire police were using that same faulty software in 2009?

The Danish police having an issue with their software in 2019 is totally unrelated to what North Yorkshire police knew or were capable of in 2009. Suggesting otherwise is a blatant Straw Man.

 

[JimmyDurham]

Moreover, the issue was a flaw with the software the Danish police were using. Since you insist everyone else sticks to only what they can prove, can you prove the North Yorkshire police were using that same faulty software in 2009?

1) This isn't a valid request given that in no way did I suggest or insinuate that NY polis used the same software. Your comment/request is the very definition of a Straw Man argument.

2) I did state that cell triangulation is not a foolproof science. There are a few reasons for this, one is that the collection of the data is bound up with the quality of the equipment, including software.

3) A thorough reading of the article will uncover the following contained within the article:

Operators insist the errors have mostly stemmed from the interpretation of their data and they should not be held responsible. Authorities contend that in some instances the data has also been at fault, but Jakob Willer, of the country’s telecoms industry association, said it was not their job to provide evidence.

You should note: interpretation of the data, as opposed to collection of the data bound up with software faults. Another reason why cell triangulation is not foolproof.

4) There are other reasons why cell triangulation is not foolproof, for example: the distortion of signal strength caused by a few factors. Signal strength is a key component in estimating the distance to a phone. The problem being that environmental factors can and do distort signal strength, which in turn distorts the distance from phone to cell tower.

5) Cell triangulation has been deemed to be 'junk science', particularly in the United States. It'll be worth stating that I didn't state that, to stave off your incoming Straw Man argument. My point is that world opinion is not undivided.

6) You neglected to comment on my conclusion in the post to which you replied. I'll quote it here for the avoidance of doubt:

That said, in the absence of any evidence to contradict the polis' statement that Claudia's phone pinged off one cell tower with a 9 mile sector/range, I'm going to assume that it is an accurate estimate in terms of the area/range covering Claudia's phone at 10 in the morning.

On reflection, I think you'd agree that I laid no claim to NY polis software being the same as that mentioned in the article.

In fact, you have strayed from the evidence and claimed it is a likely possibility that the polis are lying by omission (in previous posts). I'm prepared to accept their findings in the absence of something robust and concrete demonstrating otherwise.

My point is/was: whatever the polis concluded from cell tower triangulation, it is not foolproof. 'Worth bearing in mind.

Suggesting otherwise is a blatant Straw Man.

Partly correct. There are two of us involved in this conversation.

1) A straw man argument has been introduced.

2) You've assigned the introduction to the wrong person.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Women are assaulted/attacked/abducted at all times of the day, including in the early hours of the morning, including those who go missing: e.g. Lisa Dorrian, Leah Croucher (found years later inside a property) and Rachel Moran (found in a property after a polis search of all houses within a half a mile area of her last sighting).

I've no idea what point you're trying to make except an attempt to ignore one glaring fact: when women are murdered in their home or in an acquaintance's home, it is almost invariably at the hands of a lone man (partner, ex-partner so on).

It is also true that the Nags Head four theory is statistically far less likely than a stranger murdering Claudia.

The time of the day is irrelevant to the NH4 theory. It doesn't happen, any time of the day. Strangers murder women at all times of the day outdoors, whether or not a body is found does not detract from that.

I do agree with your points, it’s very easy to fit this into the local theories and thus discount that anything else may have occurred. Most people’s assumption has always been the police know more than they are saying and they have openly implied they believe they know what happened, but even then it shouldn’t discount other possibilities.