UK UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #4

[Mrs Marple]

Media being led down the garden path by Thames House im afraid.

I seriously doubt that.

 

[Popejohn3]

If it's not material, then why not say what they think it is?
That statement doesn't make any sense at all!

We need to realise the police are not there to answer our questions but for the public to answer their questions.
Like is this you ? Do you know who he is?
We’re you in this car ?Do you know who the driver could be ?

 

[Popejohn3]

I seriously doubt that.

Garden path or that CH is involved?

 

[MajorLang]

I seriously doubt that.

Im sure that they would also deny this

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Is it enough to drink a lot of cider somewhere, to be introduced to an heir to the throne?
Maybe, you (drunk) could rather meet a taxi driver turned killer in the entertainment district than a well protected Royal. MOO only.

 

[MajorLang]

Garden path or that CH is involved?

Who's Garden Path and who is leading ?
Ted Bundy? Why don't we throw him into the mix if suggesting CH?

 

[MajorLang]

Is it enough to drink a lot of cider somewhere, to be introduced to an heir to the throne?
Maybe, you (drunk) could rather meet a taxi driver turned killer in the entertainment district than a well protected Royal. MOO only.

There has been a sighting of Claudia with one of the esteemed

 

[MajorLang]

We need to realise the police are not there to answer our questions but for the public to answer their questions.
Like is this you ? Do you know who he is?
We’re you in this car ?Do you know who the driver could be ?

@Popejohn3 I agree with what you say, however not providing the public with sufficient evidence is not helping them.
Providing a blurry shot of a dark person walking up a Heworth Place and asking "Do you know this person, was it you" well I'm sorry but how can anyone recognise from cctv footage that has not been enhanced to allow for recognition. Police deserve answers but must avoid "going through the motions" because they are dealing with an intelligent and well educated public and all this does is sadly bring doubt and disrespect on the police. A service to this country that I want to admire however in this case they have not done anything to be admired for-Yet. By all means preserve evidence but also make sure that the public are not misled. What about all of the other people in this cctv footage that they don't mention?
"Do you know the Blonde who was stood outsideLimes admin doorway for (according to time stamps) at least 35 minutes on a cold early March morning" "Do you recognise the person in Red stood in one of the accommodation doorways at the same time?"
"Was your vehicle the one with thflashing Hazard lights reflection seen in Heworth Cottage window"

Instead they appeal regarding vehicles parked outside of the local chippy when they were probably waiting for fish and chips twice and a portion of mushy peas or a couple having a cuddle on a bridge, possibly after a night out and a person who recognises a couple arguing who spots lots of detail about the people but can't recognise the car.

 

[Popejohn3]

@Popejohn3 I agree with what you say, however not providing the public with sufficient evidence is not helping them.
Providing a blurry shot of a dark person walking up a Heworth Place and asking "Do you know this person, was it you" well I'm sorry but how can anyone recognise from cctv footage that has not been enhanced to allow for recognition. Police deserve answers but must avoid "going through the motions" because they are dealing with an intelligent and well educated public and all this does is sadly bring doubt and disrespect on the police. A service to this country that I want to admire however in this case they have not done anything to be admired for-Yet. By all means preserve evidence but also make sure that the public are not misled. What about all of the other people in this cctv footage that they don't mention?
"Do you know the Blonde who was stood outsideLimes admin doorway for (according to time stamps) at least 35 minutes on a cold early March morning" "Do you recognise the person in Red stood in one of the accommodation doorways at the same time?"
"Was your vehicle the one with thflashing Hazard lights reflection seen in Heworth Cottage window"

Instead they appeal regarding vehicles parked outside of the local chippy when they were probably waiting for fish and chips twice and a portion of mushy peas or a couple having a cuddle on a bridge, possibly after a night out and a person who recognises a couple arguing who spots lots of detail about the people but can't recognise the car.

Fair points !

 

[Yozzer]

@Popejohn3 I agree with what you say, however not providing the public with sufficient evidence is not helping them.
Providing a blurry shot of a dark person walking up a Heworth Place and asking "Do you know this person, was it you" well I'm sorry but how can anyone recognise from cctv footage that has not been enhanced to allow for recognition. Police deserve answers but must avoid "going through the motions" because they are dealing with an intelligent and well educated public and all this does is sadly bring doubt and disrespect on the police. A service to this country that I want to admire however in this case they have not done anything to be admired for-Yet. By all means preserve evidence but also make sure that the public are not misled. What about all of the other people in this cctv footage that they don't mention?
"Do you know the Blonde who was stood outsideLimes admin doorway for (according to time stamps) at least 35 minutes on a cold early March morning" "Do you recognise the person in Red stood in one of the accommodation doorways at the same time?"
"Was your vehicle the one with thflashing Hazard lights reflection seen in Heworth Cottage window"

Instead they appeal regarding vehicles parked outside of the local chippy when they were probably waiting for fish and chips twice and a portion of mushy peas or a couple having a cuddle on a bridge, possibly after a night out and a person who recognises a couple arguing who spots lots of detail about the people but can't recognise the car.

Some reasonable points Major. I sense your mounting frustration.

I think the 'sightings' still have to be kept in mind because either a) they could involve CL with A.N. Other (we just don't know do we?) or b) those people who were sighted/their friends/family could still recognise themselves and come forward as potential witnesses (increasingly unlikely to be identified now though). One problem with that part of York (Melrosegate being one) is the transient nature of students who often move from area to area.

The cold case focused very heavily on the alleyway/Nag's Head/4 suspects. The police 'own' the cctv they have distributed and have their reasons for telling us who they want to focus on. They obviously have a far bigger overview of comings and goings that night/following morning than us and do not want other irrelevant parties to be dragged into a murder enquiry e.g. a male (who could be a minor) standing outside the house in Heworth Road opposite Lime Court waiting for someone. All those houses have been searched and occupants interviewed and presumably cleared.

How about the theory that police know EXACTLY who did it and there is nothing more to be found in the cctv clips available that will assist in his/their arrest/s? I am sure they had many helpful responses to the cctv campaign held in Heworth Place/Lime Court naming the person/s. At least one arrest was evidently made on the back of his identification. But they need hard evidence on those responsible and the 4 arrested suspects have been named in the media so it is down to the public to tell what they know. And unless one of us knows the person/s responsible, I'm not sure how we can do any more.

Just my own thoughts.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

There has been a sighting of Claudia with one of the esteemed

I saw a pic, maybe it was yours? W and crowd and maybe her hair ....

 

[MajorLang]

Some reasonable points Major. I sense your mounting frustration.

I think the 'sightings' still have to be kept in mind because either a) they could involve CL with A.N. Other (we just don't know do we?) or b) those people who were sighted/their friends/family could still recognise themselves and come forward as potential witnesses (increasingly unlikely to be identified now though). One problem with that part of York (Melrosegate being one) is the transient nature of students who often move from area to area.

The cold case focused very heavily on the alleyway/Nag's Head/4 suspects. The police 'own' the cctv they have distributed and have their reasons for telling us who they want to focus on. They obviously have a far bigger overview of comings and goings that night/following morning than us and do not want other irrelevant parties to be dragged into a murder enquiry e.g. a male (who could be a minor) standing outside the house in Heworth Road opposite Lime Court waiting for someone. All those houses have been searched and occupants interviewed and presumably cleared.

How about the theory that police know EXACTLY who did it and there is nothing more to be found in the cctv clips available that will assist in his/their arrest/s? I am sure they had many helpful responses to the cctv campaign held in Heworth Place/Lime Court naming the person/s. At least one arrest was evidently made on the back of his identification. But they need hard evidence on those responsible and the 4 arrested suspects have been named in the media so it is down to the public to tell what they know. And unless one of us knows the person/s responsible, I'm not sure how we can do any more.

Just my own thoughts.

Thanks @Yozzer and sound reasoning as always. I still believe that we have to be suspicious however of four key things:

The late revelation of Private CCTV footage availability
The removal of Time stamp from footage from a camera that had only 35 minutes previously shown it
The 46 second cut in footage of cctv that would likely have shown a vehicle moving to Claudias.
The dismissal of Hazard warning lights flashing

Claudia had advised all-her Mum, Dad and Liz her friend that she was walking to work that day.

She would have to leave at 05:15 to walk
A car arrives at 05:42

The hazards and the Dark Person activity was much closer to her 05:15 agenda for leaving for work and makes sense.

For me, the cctv footage showing the breaking car has had its arrival time stated incorrectly. it was more likley to be 05:15. Unless someone was going to risk catching up with her en route.

Police can actually reveal time stamped video and enhanced footage and if they don't want us to see the suspects then pixelate it.

Evidence should be preserved I agree but it should never be tampered with IMO

 

[Yozzer]

@MajorLang Thanks @Yozzer and sound reasoning as always. I still believe that we have to be suspicious however of four key things:

The late revelation of Private CCTV footage availability
Not a public revelation though, to my knowledge? Why is it surprising to learn there is further footage? There are often house and car owners with cameras running overnight to monitor their property.
The removal of Time stamp from footage from a camera that had only 35 minutes previously shown it Minutes or seconds?
The 46 second cut in footage of cctv that would likely have shown a vehicle moving to Claudias. They have to tread a fine line between revealing the suspects to the public and 'leading' the public to a 'conclusion' about the identity of the murderer - thereby damaging chances of a fair trial?
The dismissal of Hazard warning lights flashing I don't think we can say for sure they have dismissed it - they probably have a better camera angle and know already. They may want to deter Websleuth members from getting too close to the case 'for operational reasons'.

Claudia had advised all-her Mum, Dad and Liz her friend that she was walking to work that day. True. But she was capable of being swayed by the lure of company and a drink or two.
She would have to leave at 05:15 to walk assuming she stayed at home on the night of 18/3/09.
A car arrives at 05:42

The hazards and the Dark Person activity was much closer to her 05:15 agenda for leaving for work and makes sense.

For me, the cctv footage showing the breaking car has had its arrival time stated incorrectly. it was more likley to be 05:15. Unless someone was going to risk catching up with her en route. Or she had been out overnight, popped home to grab her bag then on towards work? Or A.N. Other was arriving in Heworth Road for some other reason which may have been connected with her disappearance?

Police can actually reveal time stamped video and enhanced footage and if they don't want us to see the suspects then pixelate it. Bearing in mind this was 10 1/2 years ago, I can recall there being a problem with cctv causing police to remove time references. Not everyone is pristine about changing time stamps. Logically you would expect people using cctv as a security device to ensure accurate but we hear all the time about business premises where the cctv isn't even turned on (Nag's ahem Head...). Police seem pretty sure about the 5.42 Ford Focus so they must have corroborating evidence.

Evidence should be preserved I agree but it should never be tampered with IMO.

All in all a very frustrating case. There are some cases where police will openly name the guilty person e.g. "we believe John Cannan killed Suzie Lamplugh". Presumably the CPS have prevented Dai Malyn from doing so in this case.

 

[MajorLang]

@MajorLang Thanks @Yozzer and sound reasoning as always. I still believe that we have to be suspicious however of four key things:

The late revelation of Private CCTV footage availability
Not a public revelation though, to my knowledge? Why is it surprising to learn there is further footage? There are often house and car owners with cameras running overnight to monitor their property.
The removal of Time stamp from footage from a camera that had only 35 minutes previously shown it Minutes or seconds?
The 46 second cut in footage of cctv that would likely have shown a vehicle moving to Claudias. They have to tread a fine line between revealing the suspects to the public and 'leading' the public to a 'conclusion' about the identity of the murderer - thereby damaging chances of a fair trial?
The dismissal of Hazard warning lights flashing I don't think we can say for sure they have dismissed it - they probably have a better camera angle and know already. They may want to deter Websleuth members from getting too close to the case 'for operational reasons'.

Claudia had advised all-her Mum, Dad and Liz her friend that she was walking to work that day. True. But she was capable of being swayed by the lure of company and a drink or two.
She would have to leave at 05:15 to walk assuming she stayed at home on the night of 18/3/09.
A car arrives at 05:42

The hazards and the Dark Person activity was much closer to her 05:15 agenda for leaving for work and makes sense.

For me, the cctv footage showing the breaking car has had its arrival time stated incorrectly. it was more likley to be 05:15. Unless someone was going to risk catching up with her en route. Or she had been out overnight, popped home to grab her bag then on towards work? Or A.N. Other was arriving in Heworth Road for some other reason which may have been connected with her disappearance?

Police can actually reveal time stamped video and enhanced footage and if they don't want us to see the suspects then pixelate it. Bearing in mind this was 10 1/2 years ago, I can recall there being a problem with cctv causing police to remove time references. Not everyone is pristine about changing time stamps. Logically you would expect people using cctv as a security device to ensure accurate but we hear all the time about business premises where the cctv isn't even turned on (Nag's ahem Head...). Police seem pretty sure about the 5.42 Ford Focus so they must have corroborating evidence.

Evidence should be preserved I agree but it should never be tampered with IMO.

All in all a very frustrating case. There are some cases where police will openly name the guilty person e.g. "we believe John Cannan killed Suzie Lamplugh". Presumably the CPS have prevented Dai Malyn from doing so in this case.

 

[MajorLang]

The late revelation of Private CCTV footage availability
Not a public revelation though, to my knowledge? Why is it surprising to learn there is further footage? There are often house and car owners with cameras running overnight to monitor their property.

Because it is the LAST sighting of Claudia and would assertain that she returned home-Why not use it??

The removal of Time stamp from footage from a camera that had only 35 minutes previously shown it Minutes or seconds?

Minutes
The 46 second cut in footage of cctv that would likely have shown a vehicle moving to Claudias. They have to tread a fine line between revealing the suspects to the public and 'leading' the public to a 'conclusion' about the identity of the murderer - thereby damaging chances of a fair trial?
They can pixelate

The dismissal of Hazard warning lights flashing I don't think we can say for sure they have dismissed it - they probably have a better camera angle and know already. They may want to deter Websleuth members from getting too close to the case 'for operational reasons'.

Then should we all back off Yozzer?

Claudia had advised all-her Mum, Dad and Liz her friend that she was walking to work that day. True. But she was capable of being swayed by the lure of company and a drink or two.
She would have to leave at 05:15 to walk assuming she stayed at home on the night of 18/3/09.

Agreed
A car arrives at 05:42

The hazards and the Dark Person activity was much closer to her 05:15 agenda for leaving for work and makes sense.

For me, the cctv footage showing the breaking car has had its arrival time stated incorrectly. it was more likley to be 05:15. Unless someone was going to risk catching up with her en route. Or she had been out overnight, popped home to grab her bag then on towards work? Or A.N. Other was arriving in Heworth Road for some other reason which may have been connected with her disappearance?

Agreed

Police can actually reveal time stamped video and enhanced footage and if they don't want us to see the suspects then pixelate it. Bearing in mind this was 10 1/2 years ago, I can recall there being a problem with cctv causing police to remove time references. Not everyone is pristine about changing time stamps. Logically you would expect people using cctv as a security device to ensure accurate but we hear all the time about business premises where the cctv isn't even turned on (Nag's ahem Head...). Police seem pretty sure about the 5.42 Ford Focus so they must have corroborating evidence.

You are missing my point. The footage I am refering to is from exactly the same camera of the same morning. The First footage showed Dark Person and left in the time stamp
The second footage from exactly the same camera, showed the car braking from a different view. As it crossed Heworth Place. Not as it went along Heworth Road.

If the timestamp is on the footage at 05:08 but not on the same camera footage at 05:42, then it has been removed.... And that is suspicious.

 

[Deleted member 219975]

if it helps in any way last year I had a police computer guy here who was on one of the teams involved with this case.i had the image of the man with back pack on my pc and he said that's as good as the image gets..the relatively low resolution of the cctv camera stops the enhancement of the image above what uve seen really.

 

[MajorLang]

if it helps in any way last year I had a police computer guy here who was on one of the teams involved with this case.i had the image of the man with back pack on my pc and he said that's as good as the image gets..the relatively low resolution of the cctv camera stops the enhancement of the image above what uve seen really.

The boys at Thames house could enhance better than that

 

[Deleted member 219975]

u cant enhance past what the pixels will let u( u can sort of but it becomes predictive infill rather like ur predictive text on ur phone and we all know what that's like!) ,,csi Miami does lie sometimes zooming in on a car reg plate from 2 miles away lol.....I question the 2 people "seen" in the video.. the blond to the right just seems to be the car rear light and some distortion in the vid picture as is the person to the left.Look at the house windows u will see the distortion caused there and to be stood where ones thought too be the house door would have to be open...like others I ask wheres the footage from the camera on the building to the right.my guess is there isn't any or whats the point of releasing a less clear view from further back when u want to id the guy??

 

[Mrs Marple]

I don't see a person in the Vauxhall image. I only see the rear lights.

 

[Yozzer]

Claudia Lawrence information ‘may be being held back’, say police investigating disappearance

Dai Malyn: 18/03/2019
“The call we really want is the one that helps piece together the parts of the jigsaw we already know regarding her last movements and people she associated with and places frequented,” he added.