My guess is none of the usual suspects match the left handed smoker .The left handed smoker that was in her car needs to be identified.
Hi @MajorLang
They obviously have named him and arrested him! Yes they need more witnesses due to CPS regs, as previously posted, but for operational (and legal!) reasons they are not going to announce "We know this person is X and need you to confirm it". Instead they pose the question "Do you know this man?"
Did she use her phone as an alarm in the mornings ?
'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.
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--
Does someone not hold their cigarette in their left hand just after they light it?
@moonsafari Imagine that you are a regular at Nags and hadn't shown up there for a couple of days. So I'm one of your drinking pals and start to think "Where is that crazy girl, I miss her?" so I go looking for you. I knock on your door, no answer. I go round the back to see if your lights are on at the back of house, suggesting that you may have a "Guest" and then I return to Nags.'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
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?
The text is far too long to copy into a private message as it is a 50 minute read and includes images. Thats weird as nearly 600 people have viewed
If they’ve arrested him then the public have done their job . I don’t think they have a name for him but wouldn’t mind betting he is one of the many there were mentioned
Re smoking: I agree - I think we have become a more ambidextrous society since the onset of mobile phones. I can't comment on the smoking routines of a right hander vs left hander but surely most people carry a phone in their texting hand and aDoes someone not hold their cigarette in their left hand just after they light it?
I don't smoke but thinking about it, you would light the cigarette with your right hand if right handed if it was in your mouth. Then take it from your mouth with your left hand so as to put the lighter away? So a Left handed smoker may just be right handed who has just performed the acton of lighting the cigarette. Bad habit anyway
would be relegated to the other hand? Also do we know which side of the car the smoker was sitting? If the car was in motion and *he* was a passenger, surely out of politeness, he would hold it in his left hand with the window open? Would he swap to the right to stub it out or lean over and stub with left? Even if the former, would the left hand prints not be well embedded after holding a cigarette for, say, 5 minutes?Yes but smoking using your left hand is unusual also does not make you left handedDoes someone not hold their cigarette in their left hand just after they light it?
I don't smoke but thinking about it, you would light the cigarette with your right hand if right handed if it was in your mouth. Then take it from your mouth with your left hand so as to put the lighter away? So a Left handed smoker may just be right handed who has just performed the acton of lighting the cigarette. Bad habit anyway
Keep it simple I would say ( plus the things I have witnessed ) her friends have said that when sober Caudia did not like to offend .Maybe her new boyfriend read too much in their relationship .The dark man could easily have been her new boyfriend but did not mean much to her and according to her friends she found it hard to say go on get lost !'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
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?
Was that photo taken before or after you went for a drink in the Nag's Head
The photo comes from Google as something struck me after I left the area and so wanted to check ou the surface of pavement /tarmac and it odes appear to have quite a Camber. Would this be why someone appeared to limp?Which is the point @MajorLang has made - I think - suggesting that we shouldn't place as much weight on the lhs.
Yes @Popejohn3 as @Yozzer says. I do not believe that this sighting has any relevance to this case. It was a red herring plant by Perps to distract. In my blog I have discounted this as any evidence provided by someone who will not identify themselves is not credible
