'We have reviewed..... Looked to see if additional material could be secured' - wish he was more detailed here. Does the review include why the mistakes happened, why certain CCTV evidence was missing and/or never sought? So obvious too as ML has written. Imagine - the police, *unless acting surreptitiously*, must have in the early days been not only strongly convinced that Claudia was abducted on her journey to work--although the exact route and method of travel are still ultimately unknown, by us sleuths at least--but also that it was an attack away from the premises rather than the conclusion of a rendezvous at her home or elsewhere then back to hers to collect her things for work that could potentially be evidenced by video. To overlook or miss the evening CCTV is less likely or passable than dismissing it outright early on, perhaps because of mistaken identity, as in RC, deliberate or otherwise. If it wasn't ruled out early on, rather ignored, then Dark man could be key, or at least the shadow person that police are/were trying to hide, guilty or not, one of their own or not.
Who can answer these questions???
More on Dark man/person: if he wasn't aware of the CCTV perhaps he wasn't so familiar w the local area. Perhaps he didn't know if Claudia's back garden was accessible from the alleyway and so had to check, rather than for lights on. If he was a Nag's customer and didn't know, why not stealth peek from NH carpark instead, aware of LC cams or not rather than first walking past her house as the video footage implies? Height? For lights too. Does this mean it's more likely he was being a lookout or collecting something if involved at all? Or that he had knocked on her front door first? Checking the layout of the alleyway implies a much more adhoc, last minute plan by someone, and what could have prompted this? Being a lookout where there is CCTV is risky or clever depending on how much was known about the scope/quality/existence of the CCTV footage. Checking for lights from the direction he came, as in past her front door, suggests their motive at that time at least was not murder, rather entering the property or ascertaining if she was at home.
Furthermore, if the journey to work theory was determined by anything it's the witness sightings, the end of phone activity at 21.30ish, implying sleep when combined with the scene found at her home on Thursday evening, and the texts to her Malton friend and Jen about shifts and walking to work the next morning and other previously discussed supporting evidence. If there was a cover rather than




up we can assume this was the intended misdirection. If it was the intended misdirection, how far did the perp/s think things through? Did they anticipate media attention because of Claudia herself and her family and friends, her dad, his influence, police and law contacts, and preference to believe and propagate the quaintest scenario--
early bed that night then walking to work the next day when she was abducted--and used this to their advantage? The perps either just knew Claudia, knew them both, just her dad, or neither.
She spoke with both parents that evening - usual? What did Mothersday plans mean to her? No comment on the topics of conversation with her dad that night? How far did police look into family and monetary affairs etc?