UK UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #3

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Yozzer There are several inaccuracies in this Video. Macyntyre says "Her phone was turned of around midnight" It has always been reported at 12:10 the next day. Was this new evidence? had it been turned off at midnight and not mentioned before or did they just wrongly report it this time_I believe they got it wrong here as if it was turned off at midnight, it would have to be turned back on again later for it to be turned off for a final time at 12:10. In addition we do know that in 2009 Police had stated that they could only track phones within a 9 mile radius of the mobile transponder that was situated close to the University This was before triangulation could be as accurate as it is today.

However, I do think that Police have tried to obliterate the figure in the doorway across the road. Firstly I will show you the attached daylight shot of the house across the road.
Secondly, a shot of the figure in doorway before obliteration
and Finally, the man in doorway obliterated by a white box. I have checked the CCTV footage and this is not purely a glare or headlights.

Strange how this has been obscured from one but not the other.
Were all 3 of these people lookouts? Thesewere all from evening of 18th
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.
I keep asking when did her car break down ?
Where did her car break down ?
Was it towed to the garage and if it was , by whom ?
 
@Yozzer There are several inaccuracies in this Video. Macyntyre says "Her phone was turned of around midnight" It has always been reported at 12:10 the next day. Was this new evidence? had it been turned off at midnight and not mentioned before or did they just wrongly report it this time_I believe they got it wrong here as if it was turned off at midnight, it would have to be turned back on again later for it to be turned off for a final time at 12:10. In addition we do know that in 2009 Police had stated that they could only track phones within a 9 mile radius of the mobile transponder that was situated close to the University This was before triangulation could be as accurate as it is today.

However, I do think that Police have tried to obliterate the figure in the doorway across the road. Firstly I will show you the attached daylight shot of the house across the road.
Secondly, a shot of the figure in doorway before obliteration
and Finally, the man in doorway obliterated by a white box. I have checked the CCTV footage and this is not purely a glare or headlights.

Strange how this has been obscured from one but not the other.
Were all 3 of these people lookouts? Thesewere all from evening of 18th
Hi @MajorLang
Firstly thanks for looking back at the Donal MacIntyre video. I know it's a bit of a pain going over old stuff but it does throw light on theories that may not have existed in people's minds when first broadcast.
Yes I noticed the gaffe re the time when the phone was switched off. Bit of a howler considering the prog. was made in 2015. It was originally thought the phone may have been switched off just after midnight due mainly to people not understanding the difference between am and pm as in both cases it would be on the 19th March. This led to the theory that she was killed during the evening of the 18th, which may well yet be the case.
Re the tracking of the phone....Sky's Gerard Tubb, I believe, will be kept well informed about the case (by the police) as crime journalists often pass on key info. Think about the Sky's Jeremy Thompson interview with Ian Huntley which led to his arrest after journos expressed their suspicions about his behaviour and answers. So.....I reckon GT knows about the problems with identifying the location of the phone with suspected crime scenes being in such a tight area of Heworth.
Re the figure over the road. The white which you refer to as a box is the person's top. Yes there is some obscuring but this will be to protect the innocent & not detract from identifying the key suspect. The person in the driveway appears suddenly because NYP have edited the video. It looks to me like a young male waiting to be let in to a house or waiting for a friend to emerge. The point I was making was that this activity seems less furtive when you see the volume of traffic (human and vehicles) in the area when that cctv was filmed.
 
The thing is if the Police have a name for him they are the best placed people to confirm .They possibly can enhance it, poss video him in secret even using the same equipment from the same distance .
No the police do not have a name therefore waiting for a name from the public or himself saying yes it’s me !
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?"
 
@Yozzer There are several inaccuracies in this Video. Macyntyre says "Her phone was turned of around midnight" It has always been reported at 12:10 the next day. Was this new evidence? had it been turned off at midnight and not mentioned before or did they just wrongly report it this time_I believe they got it wrong here as if it was turned off at midnight, it would have to be turned back on again later for it to be turned off for a final time at 12:10. In addition we do know that in 2009 Police had stated that they could only track phones within a 9 mile radius of the mobile transponder that was situated close to the University This was before triangulation could be as accurate as it is today.

However, I do think that Police have tried to obliterate the figure in the doorway across the road. Firstly I will show you the attached daylight shot of the house across the road.
Secondly, a shot of the figure in doorway before obliteration
and Finally, the man in doorway obliterated by a white box. I have checked the CCTV footage and this is not purely a glare or headlights.

Strange how this has been obscured from one but not the other.
Were all 3 of these people lookouts? Thesewere all from evening of 18th
Did she use her phone as an alarm in the mornings ?
 
Malyn when discussing investigation review following 5 years of nothing said:

“Our review managed to unearth additional CCTV footage from that same camera shot the previous evening which appears to show the same man in the same place."

Now, Police will have reviewed all of CCTV in beginning, how an investigation reveals that the firs investigation failed to spot Dark and Light person is beyond me. Particularly when they would be looking at CCTV around the time she went to work

Also all footage came from only two of the 5 cameras in Limes Court area. What was seen on the other 3 that was so revealing and not shown?


And so a cover up has to be the reason.
I believe that we can safely assume that Police were told not to reveal footage that linked activity of morning and evening and that they also tried initially to dismiss the Dark person as Richard Cartwright who is now dead and can't speak for himself.

Perhaps this case, with all evidence should be handed over to a team independent of Police or any service that is run by government?

Rodney was cautioned and then sectioned for having greater observation skills than Police.
'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?
 
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.
I keep asking when did her car break down ?
Where did her car break down ?
Was it towed to the garage and if it was , by whom ?
Does 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 :)
 
ML you sent a link that has crashed my phone. C/p text into a private/public message where there is less chance of irksome bugs. Losers only win when they cheat
 
'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?
@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.

Now thats an easy assumption.

But then why would I go looking for you again the next morning? and as I slow down that evening to not catch up with the light person (they will have seen each other 2 or 3 seconds before he slows)
And
Why are both light and dark person in both evening and morning clips?
 
ML you sent a link that has crashed my phone. C/p text into a private/public message where there is less chance of irksome bugs. Losers only win when they cheat
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
Have you tried this link:
Claudia Lawrence-Who Took Her?Who was She?
 
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?"
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
 
Something that struck me when in area last week but didn't trigger until now. I attach a photo showing the camber of the footpath that Dark person would have walked evening and night. Its not uneven but is quite curved and so even if you don't have a limp (Which I don't have) You might walk a little strangely?
 

Attachments

  • Camber of footpath at Heworth Place.png
    Camber of footpath at Heworth Place.png
    451.1 KB · Views: 50
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.
I keep asking when did her car break down ?
Where did her car break down ?
Was it towed to the garage and if it was , by whom ?
Does 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 :)
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 a 🤬🤬🤬 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?
 
Does 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 :)
Yes but smoking using your left hand is unusual also does not make you left handed
 
@moonsafari
No comment on the topics of conversation with her dad that night?

Peter Lawrence did disclose they had made plans to meet for a drink on Friday evening. Do you think there may have been more discussion which has not been shared publicly e.g. a problem in her life?
 
Something that struck me when in area last week but didn't trigger until now. I attach a photo showing the camber of the footpath that Dark person would have walked evening and night. Its not uneven but is quite curved and so even if you don't have a limp (Which I don't have) You might walk a little strangely?

Was that photo taken before or after you went for a drink in the Nag's Head :)
Ok so seriously now, are you implying the man may not have had a limp but was hindered by an uneven pathway?
 
'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?
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 !
The easiest thing is to pretend you’re not in or fast asleep.
But either way he was determined to meet with her for one last time ?
 
Was that photo taken before or after you went for a drink in the Nag's Head :)
:eek::)o_O 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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
202
Guests online
692
Total visitors
894

Forum statistics

Threads
625,672
Messages
18,508,160
Members
240,832
Latest member
jonnyd3388
Back
Top