UK UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #6

[MummyRatcliffe]

If she was seeing a policeman then I would doubt she had any involvement in drugs personally then, although as you say might be a different story for others close to her

I wouldn't completely rule out drug use/involvement even if she was dating a policeman, she wouldn't necessarily have revealed this to him, and or even if he was aware it's not unheard of for LE to be aware or even involved in drug use/involvement.

I think if CL dating a police man is true, if found out by her other "friends" who may have had involvement in "shady activities" it would have definitely ruffled a few feathers, and CL constantly worried about having loose lips when inebriated. loose lips sink ships

Even more motive is if she was having relations with one of the "friends" who then found out she was also seeing a police officer. A man scorned and also worried about what she may reveal? All MOO

 

[MummyRatcliffe]

It's a GDPR thing. Linking a name directly to an address.

Sorry naive idiot here! What does GDPR mean? Do you mean by naming them fully, their address can be easily found online?

 

[Yozzer]

Sorry naive idiot here! What does GDPR mean? Do you mean by naming them fully, their address can be easily found online?

It's a law about personal privacy. Can be googled easily
Just in case you weren't aware, all these Websleuth entries will stay on the internet for ever so best to be careful about naming names not least because it might damage any chances of successful conviction. All the defence lawyer has to say is 'my client will not get a fair trial'.

 

[MummyRatcliffe]

It's a law about personal privacy. Can be googled easily
Just in case you weren't aware, all these Websleuth entries will stay on the internet for ever so best to be careful about naming names not least because it might damage any chances of successful conviction. All the defence lawyer has to say is 'my client will not get a fair trial'.

Aaahh, gotcha! I only know about other threads where suspects can be named, but that's probably due to them being charged and/or convicted. Initials are still ok though? Otherwise I get very confused!

 

[Yozzer]

Aaahh, gotcha! I only know about other threads where suspects can be named, but that's probably due to them being charged and/or convicted. Initials are still ok though? Otherwise I get very confused!

There are ways of making oblique references. The names are out there in all the mainstream news outlets from 2015/2016. Some people refer to them by initials. The photos of their homes are out there too and it doesn't take much effort to work out where the addresses are by the types of properties. There are search engines for identifying business names as 3 of the 4 run their own companies so in some cases, addresses are out there.

 

[Unelectedspokesperson]

I think this is interesting given some previous posts regarding the alley way at the back of Claudia's house. This is not obvious on Google Earth 2D but it is as plain as day on Google Earth Virtual Reality. The alley way is only accessed by Heworth Place and it looks like it only goes to and it stops at the back of her house. There is no access from the pub. Of course, this is now and it could have been different in 2009. Did anyone here ever physically check to see if this alley was accessible from both ends? I know Google Earth VR is only model looking until you hit the street view but it certainly looks accurately at my house!

It’s an interesting point and I can only hazard an [educated] guess. I think you can access it from both ends. Or at least that with a bit of tinkering you could gain access.

Edited to add: I don’t buy that no one else living on Heworth road or in the immediate area, saw anything unusual. Although it’s a small street, it is busy. It is busy day and night, it’s a narrow road and to park outside CL house/street near Nags Head, you’d be majorly impacting on traffic flow.

 

[An_Owl]

Claudia Lawrence search will focus on the alley behind her home | Daily Mail Online
25 February 2015:

DS Malyn of North Yorkshire Police said: 'One hypothesis is something could have happened overnight with another person in the house and then the alleyway was an obvious way out.'
He added: 'I know people have lied to us. People may lie because they are in a relationship, and there could be a number of reasons why they are withholding information.

Det Supt Malyn added: 'We still don't know if Claudia left for work on the morning of Thursday 19th March 2009 or whether something happened overnight within her house.
'If the latter is the case the person or persons responsible, in my view, would have used the rear alleyway as the front door leads onto a busy main road. This is why this specific piece of information needs to be fully investigated.'

The move came after police revealed they had a new lead in the case which indicated the alleyway was 'significant'.

Is one inference of Malyn’s comment about the rear alleyway being an obvious point of exit for a perpetrator that said perpetrator would have headed down the alley and then through the Nags Head car park (or even into the Nags Head)?

I ask this because we know there was CCTV that would have captured anyone heading out of the alley to the junction of Heworth Place and Heworth Road (the same camera showing the CCTV footage that everyone following this case is very much familiar with). So if a perpetrator left the house to the rear and headed back towards Heworth Road then that person would have been captured on CCTV. No such CCTV footage has been presented to the public.

So if that scenario is what occurred then he must have headed towards the Nags Head.

Meaning he must have known it was possible to leave the alley at that end (an end that was marked as a dead end on a map), which a complete stranger to the area may not have known.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Yozzer]

Is one inference of Malyn’s comment about the rear alleyway being an obvious point of exit for a perpetrator that said perpetrator would have headed down the alley and then through the Nags Head car park (or even into the Nags Head)?

I ask this because we know there was CCTV that would have captured anyone heading out of the alley to the junction of Heworth Place and Heworth Road (the same camera showing the CCTV footage that everyone following this case is very much familiar with). So if a perpetrator left the house to the rear and headed back towards Heworth Road then that person would have been captured on CCTV. No such CCTV footage has been presented to the public.

So if that scenario is what occurred then he must have headed towards the Nags Head.

Meaning he must have known it was possible to leave the alley at that end (an end that was marked as a dead end on a map), which a complete stranger to the area may not have known.

Make of that what you will.

Yes.
There is one other theory. Malyn was also interested in vehicular access to the alley and how common it was for vehicles to be driven into the alley. Of course, a vehicle leaving the alley via HP would be picked up on cctv but if the owner of the vehicle lived in HP and the vehicle left at a 'normal' time, this could be another means of disposal. The person's alibi could then be that they were on their way to work. With certain trades, it wouldn't be unusual to have an early morning start.

 

[Popejohn3]

The police need hard evidence like CL turning up dead or alive. A confession perhaps with a deal .Someone with courage to grass him up bearing in mind he could strike first if he believed you’re about to give him up.
The priority should be ( after ten years ) to give Claudia back to her family even if he is never punished .
It could have been an accident...

 

[MummyRatcliffe]

Is one inference of Malyn’s comment about the rear alleyway being an obvious point of exit for a perpetrator that said perpetrator would have headed down the alley and then through the Nags Head car park (or even into the Nags Head)?

I ask this because we know there was CCTV that would have captured anyone heading out of the alley to the junction of Heworth Place and Heworth Road (the same camera showing the CCTV footage that everyone following this case is very much familiar with). So if a perpetrator left the house to the rear and headed back towards Heworth Road then that person would have been captured on CCTV. No such CCTV footage has been presented to the public.

So if that scenario is what occurred then he must have headed towards the Nags Head.

Meaning he must have known it was possible to leave the alley at that end (an end that was marked as a dead end on a map), which a complete stranger to the area may not have known.

Make of that what you will.

Perfectly explained and understood, thanks! It's the only viable option to me at the moment for how no CCTV has captured CL since she came home at 3.05pm on 18th

 

[MajorLang]

From memory, I definitely recall the alley linking through to the pub in 2009. Also many of the fences had gates - not only rear gates onto the alley, but gates in fences adjoining the properties. A security nightmare which I think has been remedied by most of the owners, no doubt on the advice of police.

The overhead photos of the alley in this article below are more recent but you will read from the description that 3 storage buildings at the back of the pub car park weren't searched in 2009, to Mrs Lawrence's horror. Even she hints that Claudia could have been removed via the rear although I imagine Mrs L thought she was abducted rather than murdered.
‘If Claudia was taken out of the back of the house, this area could be an obvious spot where she was taken to or through.'

Claudia Lawrence: Mum horrified police failed to search nearby wasteland

And where a female member of the public reported she heard a struggle in the alleyway

 

[MajorLang]

Can we not name the POIs in this case on here? I know on many other threads suspects or POIs related to the case can be named, but as these people were never charged can they not be named? Thanks

The Sun named them and so I include anything in the public domain in my Blog.

 

[MummyRatcliffe]

The Sun named them and so I include anything in the public domain in my Blog.

I've read your blog and it's a great source of info. I know the POIs have been named publicly but I wondered why we couldn't name them on here. Normally on websleuths we can name POIs if they have been named in MSM but they are never named on this thread. I'll only use initials to err on the side of caution.

You say on another post that somebody reported hearing a struggle in the alleyway. Was this on the night of 18th/morning 19th? This is the first I've heard. Is there a link or can you elaborate? Thanks

 

[Jude Merlin]

I have some questions that might have been asked and answered before and if so I apologize but it is rather a long blog. Claudia's father and other people have stated that there was breakfast crockery in the sink area of Claudia's house when they entered. I cannot understand why, if Claudia does not earn a lot of money at her job, she does not wait until she gets to work and eats there ... for free surely? Perks of the job .... unless she was on a special diet which they did not have in the canteen. Or was this crockery, as Major Lang pointed out previously, perhaps not her breakfast things?
What about her chef whites? Why did she take them to and from work? How many sets did she have? Didn't she have a locker where she could have kept her work clothes and other stuff? Did she take them home to wash and iron them? Did they not have contractors who did the laundry? Her backpack seemed pretty light (over one shoulder).
Did she have to clock in or sign in when she got to work? How strict was the regime there? Did she have to be fully booted and spurred and physically at her workplace at 06.00 am ready for her assignments for her 8 hour shift (I am assuming 8 hours plus a 30 minute unpaid lunch break ............ but you know about "assume" ..... "' of 'u' and 'me').

 

[Popejohn3]

And where a female member of the public reported she heard a struggle in the alleyway

News to me for one

 

[Popejohn3]

A struggle ... meaning shouting screaming male female voices shouts for help ?
The woman not curious enough to have a peek ?

 

[Yozzer]

I have some questions that might have been asked and answered before and if so I apologize but it is rather a long blog. Claudia's father and other people have stated that there was breakfast crockery in the sink area of Claudia's house when they entered. I cannot understand why, if Claudia does not earn a lot of money at her job, she does not wait until she gets to work and eats there ... for free surely? Perks of the job .... unless she was on a special diet which they did not have in the canteen. Or was this crockery, as Major Lang pointed out previously, perhaps not her breakfast things?
What about her chef whites? Why did she take them to and from work? How many sets did she have? Didn't she have a locker where she could have kept her work clothes and other stuff? Did she take them home to wash and iron them? Did they not have contractors who did the laundry? Her backpack seemed pretty light (over one shoulder).
Did she have to clock in or sign in when she got to work? How strict was the regime there? Did she have to be fully booted and spurred and physically at her workplace at 06.00 am ready for her assignments for her 8 hour shift (I am assuming 8 hours plus a 30 minute unpaid lunch break ............ but you know about "assume" ..... "' of 'u' and 'me').

Good points.
I think Peter Lawrence made assumptions, based on his knowledge of Claudia's routines, in saying the dishes were from breakfast and the slippers left neatly by the door were an indication she had slipped into her boots before leaving for work. However, there has been some querying of the crockery and I'm not sure how well, if at all, NYP analysed this (I have read in various sources that there were dirty dishes in the sink; but elsewhere that the dishes had been washed and neatly stacked) so who knows if they indicate a 'breakfast time' meal or an early evening supper from the night before? The slippers were 'granny' slippers which Claudia would never have worn, according to her mother. Perhaps her father bought them for Xmas/ or her birthday in Feb? In any case, JL's comment suggests that some staging may have occurred.

Re the backpack, I wondered if she had either gone elsewhere for the night or, if she had a visitor, he had taken it to conceal the keys, phone and potentially, other incriminating evidence on leaving the premises. It was convenient, that's all.

 

[Popejohn3]

Good points.
I think Peter Lawrence made assumptions, based on his knowledge of Claudia's routines, in saying the dishes were from breakfast and the slippers left neatly by the door were an indication she had slipped into her boots before leaving for work. However, there has been some querying of the crockery and I'm not sure how well, if at all, NYP analysed this (I have read in various sources that there were dirty dishes in the sink; but elsewhere that the dishes had been washed and neatly stacked) so who knows if they indicate a 'breakfast time' meal or an early evening supper from the night before? The slippers were 'granny' slippers which Claudia would never have worn, according to her mother. Perhaps her father bought them for Xmas/ or her birthday in Feb? In any case, JL's comment suggests that some staging may have occurred.

Re the backpack, I wondered if she had either gone elsewhere for the night or, if she had a visitor, he had taken it to conceal the keys, phone and potentially, other incriminating evidence on leaving the premises. It was convenient, that's all.

I wonder did the family or police make an inventory as far as they could establish of birthday presents given to her 3 weeks previously.
Finger prints on them ? Guarantees with them ?
Who bought tulips I believe the police found on her glass table .There are photos showing these and her sitting room furnishings ?

 

[Jude Merlin]

Good points.
I think Peter Lawrence made assumptions, based on his knowledge of Claudia's routines, in saying the dishes were from breakfast and the slippers left neatly by the door were an indication she had slipped into her boots before leaving for work. However, there has been some querying of the crockery and I'm not sure how well, if at all, NYP analysed this (I have read in various sources that there were dirty dishes in the sink; but elsewhere that the dishes had been washed and neatly stacked) so who knows if they indicate a 'breakfast time' meal or an early evening supper from the night before? The slippers were 'granny' slippers which Claudia would never have worn, according to her mother. Perhaps her father bought them for Xmas/ or her birthday in Feb? In any case, JL's comment suggests that some staging may have occurred.

Re the backpack, I wondered if she had either gone elsewhere for the night or, if she had a visitor, he had taken it to conceal the keys, phone and potentially, other incriminating evidence on leaving the premises. It was convenient, that's all.

This is good info. Thank you

 

[Yozzer]

I wonder did the family or police make an inventory as far as they could establish of birthday presents given to her 3 weeks previously.
Finger prints on them ? Guarantees with them ?
Who bought tulips I believe the police found on her glass table .There are photos showing these and her sitting room furnishings ?

I know tulips were her favourite flowers because her mother revealed this.
Here's a source:

Looking down at the flowers in her hands, she says: “Tulips were Claudia’s favourite flowers. Every spring she would fill her house with them. In the winter she would have silk ones.
Tracing missing Claudia Lawrence's footsteps five years on: Mum's quest to find daughter

I wonder if that's why she popped out again after getting her lift home on Wed? To buy a bunch of flowers.