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

[Popejohn3]

When you take time off from WS and are able to get away from any distractions of the kind I was experiencing you have time to work out a very plausible theory.

I publish this here, wont take any questions but ask that you consider this following theory.


So here it is:

Liz from Malton, a very good friend of Claudias was texting on the night of 18th. Liz was worried because she learns Claudia is walking to work the next day.
Claudia was a thoughtful person and valued friends so she wouldn't say she was walking if she had a pre-arranged lift.
This is why a car arriving at 05: 42 is not plausible as they would have missed her as someone was giving her a pre-arranged at 05:42 and the time ALLEGED in the CCTV footage and Police report of the Braking car.

Claudia must have planned to walk to work on the morning of 19th March and as not aware of a lift would have had to set off far earlier at 05:10 / 05:15 so as to get to work at 6;00 in time to change into her chef whites.


There was no Time Stamp on the footage of the Breaking car.
Not from the camera showing it as it approaches Heworth Road or most importantly, the footage shot from within The Limes, that shows it passing the entrance to Heworth Place. Why was this when it would be available?

In my cctv footage analysis.The Blonde girl Time Stamps this cctv for me.
She was still in the doorway on the braking car footage 35 minutes later at 05:42.

She was seen earlier in the timestamped footage of dark Person at 05:08.

Even if she was a lookout, 35 minutes is an inordinate amount of time to stand outside on a cold March morning in the North East of England?

What if she wasn't there for that long?

What if the footage was 05:10 / 05:15 only 2 to 7 minutes later, this would be more feasible would it not?

So was the Time stamp removed from the CCTV footage of the breaking car as it crosses Heworth Place for obvious reasons?
(The timestamp was shown on the earlier footage from the same camera so why not later?)

What if the Braking car was actually seen at 05:05 / 05:10 and as Claudia came out of her house, she either got into the car that looked like Michael Snelling's or she was bundled into a car-A nice surprise, how thoughtful of Michael-But it wasn't Michael.

Also waiting in the wings was the vehicle with the flashing hazards (Reflecting on the side window at Heworth Cottage) that again I mention in CCTV analysis.

The flashing light sequence seen in the reflection resembles more of that of a Breakdown truck.

Claudia gets in the car, doors locked, car reverses to truck car and occupants are and is put on board. Not unusual for a car to fail to start or require removal when someone sets off for work.

Truck takes car to Scrap Yard and so why the car and Claudia have never been found.

Shadows in CCTV were either role playing or actual lookouts.

All we now have to do is to establish the motive which could have been one of the following:

Claudia either knew something
Had a relationship with a high profile person
Was about to blow the whistle on an undercover operation or operative.

If I am wrong then this can easily be corrected by the police by starting to show proper digitally enhanced footage all time stamped for this case. In 2009 this was possible to do with the right will.

You may be aware of how CCTV footage and evidence was built up in the Jo Cox case.
The same evidence is suspect here and if this case went to court a good defence barrister would ask the same questions that I ask. That is why the CPS took their time over rejecting the evidence that was never going to be presented-To give hope.

Quite possibly our Famous 4 were "Patsys"

Thank you

All updated including full cctv analysis in my Blog which I continue to focus on here:

Claudia Lawrence-Who Took Her?

“Patsy’s “ ?
I know you said no questions.you don’t have to answer just letting you know I for one do not know what it means .

 

[Popejohn3]

Have you asked Suzy Cooper if Claudia visited these Cubans. There is no record anywhere of this. There is a record of her holidaying in Cuba. There is a record of Police visiting to interview people in South Manchester, but this could be tied to the van removals from North West by her friend she met in Cyprus-Robbie Campbell?

Robbie Campbell (40's)

"Owner of a bar in Coral Bay, Cyprus and several other businesses. Visited UK on 18th March 2009 before Claudias disappearance with 3 friends to move 3 vehicles from Liverpool to Cyprus, Via Italy." 4 of them in total?

 

[MajorLang]

View attachment 211998

"Claudia may be described by friends as quiet and shy until she gets to know people, but four years ago, on holiday in Cuba with Dan, she formed a close bond with a group of men from Hale, Cheshire.

One of the group, Lee Milench, 35, a chef at the American Bar in Hale, said: ‘I was with about 15 mates when we met Claudia and her boyfriend. After the holiday we all kept in touch and she would come over at weekends and stay at one of our homes.

‘She stayed at my house a few times.
Some of the lads would go over to York to see her for weekends sometimes.

But I don’t think she has been over here since last summer.’


Lee Milench now lives on Teeside.

 

[Popejohn3]

"Claudia may be described by friends as quiet and shy until she gets to know people, but four years ago, on holiday in Cuba with Dan, she formed a close bond with a group of men from Hale, Cheshire.

One of the group, Lee Milench, 35, a chef at the American Bar in Hale, said: ‘I was with about 15 mates when we met Claudia and her boyfriend. After the holiday we all kept in touch and she would come over at weekends and stay at one of our homes.

‘She stayed at my house a few times.
Some of the lads would go over to York to see her for weekends sometimes.

But I don’t think she has been over here since last summer.’


Lee Milench now lives on Teeside.

Thank you MajorLang I could not find this article .i hope it answers @FromGermany ’s question

 

[Deleted member 102539]

“Patsy’s “ ?
I know you said no questions.you don’t have to answer just letting you know I for one do not know what it means .

Slang. a person who is easily swindled, deceived, coerced, persuaded, etc.; sucker. a person upon whom the blame for something falls; scapegoat; fall guy.

 

[Mrs Marple]

Her phone was disconnected by an "Explicit" disconnection (Someone turning the phone off deliberately) at 12:10 pm on the afternoon of 19th March. Would they have gone back to her house around this time?? The phone was turned off within a 9 mile radius of York University.

Well that's what l mean, it seems unlikely. So was Claudia with the phone? If the answer is yes, it seems more likely she was taken in the morning. But why leave it so long to switch it off?

If the answer is no, Claudia was not with the phone, then why didn't they turn it off after someone called her?

The peeps had limited understanding of phone pings, but was it common knowledge at the time? If it was they clearly aren't career criminals.

 

[MajorLang]

Well that's what l mean, it seems unlikely. So was Claudia with the phone? If the answer is yes, it seems more likely she was taken in the morning. But why leave it so long to switch it off?

If the answer is no, Claudia was not with the phone, then why didn't they turn it off after someone called her?

The peeps had limited understanding of phone pings, but was it common knowledge at the time? If it was they clearly aren't career criminals.

@MissMarple

Well that's what l mean, it seems unlikely.

I agree that it seems unlikely that they would return to her house at or before 12:10

So was Claudia with the phone? If the answer is yes, it seems more likely she was taken in the morning. But why leave it so long to switch it off?

How does it commute that if Claudia was with the phone that she would have been taken in the morning?

If the answer is no, Claudia was not with the phone, then why didn't they turn it off after someone called her?

Was it because Claudia was not with the phone and neither were they because they were with Claudia?

The peeps had limited understanding of phone pings, but was it common knowledge at the time? If it was they clearly aren't career criminals.

Or did they deliberately leave the phone within the 9 mile radius and take her body elsewhere instructing an accomplice to turn the phone off at a prescribed time to confuse all.
Without or even with modern triangulation it is difficult to ascertain and so I deem they the phone evidence is far from material in this case.

 

[MajorLang]

like dennis nilson said murder is easy its getting rid of the body that's the hard bit..of course it could be Christopher Halliwell..

And it could be Ted Bundy. If it was Halliwell then the police could have put this to bed 10 years ago so why didn't they?

 

[Yozzer]

“Patsy’s “ ?
I know you said no questions.you don’t have to answer just letting you know I for one do not know what it means .

Google patsy. It's there if you care to look!

 

[Mrs Marple]

Well that's what l mean, it seems unlikely.

I agree that it seems unlikely that they would return to her house at or before 12:10

So was Claudia with the phone? If the answer is yes, it seems more likely she was taken in the morning. But why leave it so long to switch it off?

How does it commute that if Claudia was with the phone that she would have been taken in the morning?

Because l find it odd that they would have taken her and her phone and the bag etc and set it up with the breakfast things etc. It's entirely possible, but something about it seems off. I doubt she was expecting someone at that hour when she had to get up for work early the next day. I doubt someone was already there because she was busy chatting and texting and watching tv. If someone turned up, we know it was likely more than one person. In the ensuing drama, would they really have remembered to do all those things?

If the answer is no, Claudia was not with the phone, then why didn't they turn it off after someone called her?

Was it because Claudia was not with the phone and neither were they because they were with Claudia?

Possible so the parted company with the phone but if so..why not turn it off right away?

The peeps had limited understanding of phone pings, but was it common knowledge at the time? If it was they clearly aren't career criminals.

Or did they deliberately leave the phone within the 9 mile radius and take her body elsewhere instructing an accomplice to turn the phone off at a prescribed time to confuse all.
Without or even with modern triangulation it is difficult to ascertain and so I deem they the phone evidence is far from material in this case.

Fair enough but the police don't seem to agree. (Sorry can't seem to make text black again)

 

[MajorLang]

Well that's what l mean, it seems unlikely.

I agree that it seems unlikely that they would return to her house at or before 12:10

So was Claudia with the phone? If the answer is yes, it seems more likely she was taken in the morning. But why leave it so long to switch it off?

How does it commute that if Claudia was with the phone that she would have been taken in the morning?

Because l find it odd that they would have taken her and her phone and the bag etc and set it up with the breakfast things etc. It's entirely possible, but something about it seems off. I doubt she was expecting someone at that hour when she had to get up for work early the next day. I doubt someone was already there because she was busy chatting and texting and watching tv. If someone turned up, we know it was likely more than one person. In the ensuing drama, would they really have remembered to do all those things?

If the answer is no, Claudia was not with the phone, then why didn't they turn it off after someone called her?

Was it because Claudia was not with the phone and neither were they because they were with Claudia?

Possible so the parted company with the phone but if so..why not turn it off right away?

The peeps had limited understanding of phone pings, but was it common knowledge at the time? If it was they clearly aren't career criminals.

Or did they deliberately leave the phone within the 9 mile radius and take her body elsewhere instructing an accomplice to turn the phone off at a prescribed time to confuse all.
Without or even with modern triangulation it is difficult to ascertain and so I deem they the phone evidence is far from material in this case.

Fair enough but the police don't seem to agree. (Sorry can't seem to make text black again)

What if they wanted to keep the phone and on to see when someone would start to miss her ?

 

[MajorLang]

Or, more controversial.. If you held a high position in the community (Senior PoliceOffice/Judge/Politician etc) and this "incident" would ruin your reputation?

Or even a Royal

 

[MajorLang]

Yesterday the Cleveleland and North Yorkshire Cold Case Police Team provided knowledge in an online forum that there was a private house CCTV camera in operation in the house opposite to Claudias (Installed by occupants to deter vandalism) and they have a blurry but good enough shot of Claudia returning home from the unknown errand after she popped out and back again having finished work.
The image was at 15:05 on 18th March 2009 and shows her returning to her house at 46 Heworth Road.

The house was directly opposite Claudias
The camera was positioned inside of the window of the front room of the house.

The same police department when asked about Hazard warning lights flashing in the CCTV morning footage when Dark person entered and left Heworth Place said that "They had checked this using "Enhanced" footage and didn't believe it to be Hazard Warning Light"

They didn't say what it could have been though?

But you can view for yourself. Watch the side window in heworth place and the flashing amber lights showing all of the way during the footage-Also note the 46 second missing footage when he disappears out of view:

So here we have an admission that the police CAN enhance the footage that they have shown us.
and

That there WAS a camera that was capable of showing comings and goings at Claudias Front Door.

Given that the camera would most likely be operating in the unsociable hours of vandalism and graffiti; one would expect that based upon the storage capacity of this CCTV tech, there should be, even if only Blurry footage, mages at Claudias front door.

As we know this would be equally important for the following:

1. The crucial 9 Hour period after she spoke to her Mum or even before if she went out again to somewhere else?
2. The braking Car and it's exact time.
3. Dark person and white persons enhanced route.
4. The reported caller at her door that week that she let in.
5. Possibly the two people stood at her door a week before she dissapeared.
6. The person reported to be seen at her door at 06:45 on the morning of 19th March

To save going into more details, I have updated my blog with all of this information and far more that includes a complete CCTV analysis and details of how the morning Dark person CCTV was cut by 46 seconds when he went out of view, how some CCTV evidence has had timestamps removed and that it is likely that the Braking car actually arrived much earlier than reported.

Given that we now know of the crucially positioned cctv camera and that Police have admitted that they can enhance cctv footage from that era. Is it only me that is somewhat suspicious of what we are being told?

Is it possible that the timestamp on the private cctv camera may not concur with the timestamp on Limes cctv footage and so cause a problem if shown?

If nothing else, perhaps there is not a conspiracy theory and this went to court. A mediocre defence barrister would make a meal of all of this and perhaps that is why CPS decided not to pursue further?

Claudia Lawrence-Who Took Her?

And this is a summary of questions and replies with some names redacted for privacy reasons:

I ask this question
Q.Why don’t Police show the missing CCTV footage from the private household, as private CCTV has been used in other cases

A - It was deemed of no value as it was just a few seconds of hazy footage showing Claudia, on her own, heading towards her house.
The footage was captured from a house directly opposite hers which had previous issues of someone vandalising their garden, so they installed a very small camera in their window pane to try and catch the culprit. Unfortunately, footage is hazy due to condensation on the window so was deemed to be of no value

Q - Next question

XXXXXX
Brought to our attention this week the CCTV footage of the hazard warning lights reflecting in the window of the house (Heworth Cottage) on the corner of Heworth Road and Heworth Place. This can be seen in the morning footage of 19th here reflecting in the windows of the house as Dark Person passes by.
Why did the Police not point this out, were they aware of this?

Police Answer - They have seen enhanced CCTV footage and, in their opinion, these are not hazard lights reflecting in the house windows.

A Person Summarising comments:
So I appreciate these answers may raise more questions than answers but it’s more to discuss xxxxxx, of course! Who lived in the house directly opposite Claudia?
Police also added there’s no Police conspiracy.
They he said it’s more like a conspiracy of silence from the PEOPLE who MURDERED her!

 

[Popejohn3]

Halliwell chief suspect ???! Since when ?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

The same police department when asked about Hazard warning lights flashing in the CCTV morning footage when Dark person entered and left Heworth Place said that "They had checked this using "Enhanced" footage and didn't believe it to be Hazard Warning Light"

They didn't say what it could have been though?

But you can view for yourself. Watch the side window in heworth place and the flashing amber lights showing all of the way during the footage-

I see, that there is a hazard light (yellow/orange) reflecting in the window all the time. If it isn't a truck for garbage collection, it might be another sort of truck. Does the height of the hazard light in the window fit with the height of a truck? Idk.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

View attachment 212364 Halliwell chief suspect ???! Since when ?

Would make the most sense of all, but IF, why were/are CL's "friends" not helping police and preferred to be arrested? Did they know CH also perhaps? They may have known him as someone, who worked in the building industry also sometimes, AFAIK.
‘He used to be a groundworker up north – I know somebody who worked with him on the same building site. He would go and have a pint with the lads and then disappear.
Police dig up garden of murderer Christopher Halliwell | Daily Mail Online
A groundworker is a British term for a subcontractor who is employed to prepare a home construction site for the shallow foundation of a new home. Typically, the groundworker clears the site, lays a foundation, installs drainage and other pipework, and may build roads if necessary.

 

[MajorLang]

Would make the most sense of all, but IF, why were/are CL's "friends" not helping police and preferred to be arrested? Did they know CH also perhaps? They may have known him as someone, who worked in the building industry also sometimes, AFAIK.
‘He used to be a groundworker up north – I know somebody who worked with him on the same building site. He would go and have a pint with the lads and then disappear.
Police dig up garden of murderer Christopher Halliwell | Daily Mail Online
A groundworker is a British term for a subcontractor who is employed to prepare a home construction site for the shallow foundation of a new home. Typically, the groundworker clears the site, lays a foundation, installs drainage and other pipework, and may build roads if necessary.

I doubt if even the arrested 4 would cover for Halliwell.

 

[MajorLang]

I see, that there is a hazard light (yellow/orange) reflecting in the window all the time. If it isn't a truck for garbage collection, it might be another sort of truck. Does the height of the hazard light in the window fit with the height of a truck? Idk.

On further examination, the hazards could be that of a breakdown truck. Police say they have checked footage but they say it is not material, they wont say what it is???

 

[x_caz_x]

On further examination, the hazards could be that of a breakdown truck. Police say they have checked footage but they say it is not material, they wont say what it is???

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

 

[MajorLang]

View attachment 212364 Halliwell chief suspect ???! Since when ?

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