UK UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #7

[keep-it-real]

I

Statistics are only 1 part of solving a puzzle. Criminological theory very rarely has 1 answer in theoretical discussion; but tickboxes and ideas through statistics,Philosophical,Sociological, Environmental and Psychological paradigms for example etc . However;every case should be taken on its own merit


So; using the source of Tim Newburn - CRIMINOLOGY (2007) Chapter 20 - p439-444 and sadly if we take it that Claudia has been murdered:



Males to comprise 90% of homicide offenders - Thus there is a high chance the perpetrator is obviously Male

85% of murders are committed by someone under the age of 39 yrs old - So; using a tally. There's now a chance the murderer was a Male under the age of 39 yrs old

40% of individuals that committed murder were aged between 15 and 24 yrs old and 62% of those that were convicted of murder were aged under 29 yrs old - Thus; there is a high chance the person that needs finding is Male and under the age of 39 yrs old. But its more likely there between 29-39 yrs of age

There's further claims that the peak age of offending for homicide perpetrators is 31-35 yrs old - So we can take it the most likely probability is that the Male is 31-35 yrs of age

48% of the sample were in non-professional occupations and 46% were unemployed - Thus we could add the 31-35 yr old Male is in a non-professional sector of work or unemployed.

To this; we could add that they had endured problems at school/lack of attainment (61%), witnessed or experienced physical and/or sexual abuse (25%), been in care or/and were from broken homes (24%), had alcohol (50%) and/or drug issues (25%), been offending at an early age, held mental health(25%)





Few commentators believe that homicide, or any other crime violent or otherwise has a single cause

44% of the male victims and almost all the female victims were killed during the course of some dispute with someone they knew, and it seems that the most common motive for unlawful homicide is some sort of personal emotional reason; that is,the offence is committed in the course of a quarrel or fit of temper

Over 33% of female victims were killed by their husbands. I will add a comment to that. Perhaps a statistic would be of a similar nature with female victims killed by their partners?

More than 50% of the persons indicted for murder each year have a familiar relationship, and up to 66-78% of all have had a personal relationship of some duration and/or intensity with the victim. Only about 22-25% of the total number of murder victims have been total strangers to their victims''

• Friend/acquaintence - 40%
• Spouse/cohabitant or former spouse/cohabitant - 15%

Motive and relationship - Someone Claudia knew, and there was most likely more than one motive. The event was most likely conducted during an argument due to a personal emotional reason by either a person Claudia had been in some sort of relationship with, a friend or an acquaintence

And we can add the above to the info below:

Good chance its a Male perpetrator who is 31-35 yrs old and is in a non-professional sector of work or unemployed.

To this; we could add that they had endured problems at school/lack of attainment (61%), witnessed or experienced physical and/or sexual abuse (25%), been in care or/and were from broken homes (24%), had alcohol (50%) and/or drug issues (25%), been offending at an early age, held mental health(25%)





Use of weapons:

In the cases of homicide; sharp weapons (usually a knife) are the most commonly used. Between 22% and 40% of murders were conducted via a sharp instrument (sample from 1957-1977).

Mitchells small sample concluded that 39% of cases involved a sharp instrument,22% were conducted by strangulation and 19% saw a blunt implement as the murder weapon. 8% were conducted by shooting.

Recent reports state that less than 10% of murders are committed via shooting; whereas nearly 33% are conducted through the use of a sharp instrument

In England and Wales between 1995-2001. The findings are approx:

• Sharp instrument - 30%
• Hitting/Kicking - 11%
• Blunt instrument - 9%
• Shooting - 8%
• Strangulation - 7%
• Poisoning - 5%
• Causing to fall - 6%
• Suffocation - 4%
• Other - 16%

Thus statistics could suggest the perpetrator is a 31-35 yrs old Male and is in a non-professional sector of work or unemployed.
Claudia knew this person, and there was most likely more than one motive. The event was most likely conducted during an argument due to a personal emotional reason by either a person Claudia had been in some sort of relationship with, a friend or an acquaintance

To this; we could add that they had endured problems at school/lack of attainment (61%), witnessed or experienced physical and/or sexual abuse (25%), been in care or/and were from broken homes (24%), had alcohol (50%) and/or drug issues (25%), been offending at an early age, held mental health impairments (25%)

Statistically; a sharp object is the most common weapon used


Statistics do not always provide all the answers but can provide probable tickbox checklists

I would have thought strangulation would have been a higher percentage

 

[MajorLang]

I


I would have thought strangulation would have been a higher percentage

And what about strangulation with Hair straighteners, what's the % for that

 

[MEKON]

An extremley informative post Mekon thank you for posting it

There's a typing mistake in that post:

Motive and relationship

Brookman (2005: 56) comments: 'few commentators believe that homicide, or any other crime violent or otherwise has a single cause '.

Mitchell (1979: 58) states 445 of the male victims and almost all the female victims were killed during the course of some dispute with someone they knew, and this led Mitchell to believe that:... ''whether the victim be male or female,it seems that the most common motive for unlawful homicide is some sort of personal emotional reason; that is,the offence is committed in the course of a quarrel or fit of temper'


It should say : states 44% of the male victims and......

 

[Inspector Evans]

So if you put all that together then what does it indicate in this case.
Of course if it was an accident and then a cover up none of this would apply.
"Lies dammed lies and statistics"

I do wonder if whoever did this (clearly of a very cold and clinical manner) has a quick browse and chuckle on here or other sites that had plenty of CL's case. Chuckle in a sense they're looking at all the various and logical theories and thinking to themselves "if only I'd thought of that!" In reality it was probably more simple and they just got lucky/had a very good idea of how to dispose of the body through help and location.

They're probably thinking to themselves they had no idea of where CCTVs were positioned and didn't even think of decoys or dressing up as has been speculated.

Ultimately key strands are she came to harm away from public view, POI had good help in disposable of body and then luck came into play. For example phone not being switched off until lunchtime the next day. A more clued up and concerned employer could've set the missing person inquiry going 24 hours earlier perhaps. Then there could've been a more specific location identified as we saw years back with Ian Huntley.

Frustrations there privately for the police I'm sure.

 

[keep-it-real]

Yes they did and that's why Malyn was appointed

Dai Malyn headed ' Essence' which was an Internal Review of the case.
Why was there no an External Review?

 

[MEKON]

An extremley informative post Mekon thank you for posting it

The work of Hale,Hayward,Wahidin and Wincup - CRIMINOLOGY (2005) Chapter 11 page 228-235 :

Although the work of Larry Ray is referring to violent crime and crime in general (and not murder); it can provide insight into explanations of murder. Ray writes that the British Crime Survey suggests that perpetrators and their victims often know each other- either as intimates or acquaintances. The pattern is clearly gendered; with men being represented highly in incidents of stranger violence and domestic violence

Ray further uses the work of Croall (1998: 137) to give ratios of certain crimes committed by Male and Females:

Ratio (M:F)

Sexual Offences 75:1
Common Assault 7:1
Violence Against the Person 5.7: 1

Ray adds that Gender patterning of crime is not a new trend as Males have been over-represented in all major violent crime categories since the collection of crime statistics began.

In 1992 only 8.7% of convictions for violence against a person were conducted by Females; in 2002 the % was 10%

Thus; we could safely state that Claudia's perpetrator was most likely Male



Similarly Larry Ray offers explanations about the nature of masculinity and its relationship with domestic violence. Although he is suggesting risk factors associated with Domestic violence. There are common risk factors associated with perpetrators of murder and domestic violence. These are: Alcohol abuse,Depression/Personality Disorder and low educational attainment

 

[keep-it-real]

I would

just one point : the pack bag was reported to the NH people and they advised him to go to the police !

Biazzarely in a Sunday Times article it reports that the person who said that in Nags Head said he had pictures of her rucksack, scarf and shoe!! heres the link
‘A marriage breaker? That just isn’t the Claudia I know’ | The Sunday Times

 

[Popejohn3]

I do wonder if whoever did this (clearly of a very cold and clinical manner) has a quick browse and chuckle on here or other sites that had plenty of CL's case. Chuckle in a sense they're looking at all the various and logical theories and thinking to themselves "if only I'd thought of that!" In reality it was probably more simple and they just got lucky/had a very good idea of how to dispose of the body through help and location.

They're probably thinking to themselves they had no idea of where CCTVs were positioned and didn't even think of decoys or dressing up as has been speculated.

Ultimately key strands are she came to harm away from public view, POI had good help in disposable of body and then luck came into play. For example phone not being switched off until lunchtime the next day. A more clued up and concerned employer could've set the missing person inquiry going 24 hours earlier perhaps. Then there could've been a more specific location identified as we saw years back with Ian Huntley.

Frustrations there privately for the police I'm sure.

Yes probably came to harm back in his car after she escaped from it .
Then he went back for the ruck sack etc

 

[SimeonOPatrick]

Very bored of this forum!! Going around in circles and circles being made by ppl on the forum ( especially those that claim to know the most like MajoryLangly).... Perhaps the plods need to look at this serial poster and one who tries to distract everyone from their own theories.......the truth is always closer to home!!

 

[keep-it-real]

Biazzarely in a Sunday Times article it reports that the person who said that in Nags Head said he had pictures of her rucksack, scarf and shoe!! heres the link
‘A marriage breaker? That just isn’t the Claudia I know’ | The Sunday Times

Apologies for any confusion the Post should have read Mirror not Sunday Times heres the link
Missing Claudia Lawrence's last words to pal revealed

 

[Popejohn3]

Apologies for any confusion the Post should have read Mirror not Sunday Times heres the link
Missing Claudia Lawrence's last words to pal revealed

Yep that’s more like it.There is no mention of this man in the Sunday times magazine article.But please all do read it it’s excellent

 

[SimeonOPatrick]

I


I would have thought strangulation would have been a higher percentage

Thanks for your pm and encouraging message Keepitreal

 

[MajorLang]

Very bored of this forum!! Going around in circles and circles being made by ppl on the forum ( especially those that claim to know the most like MajoryLangly).... Perhaps the plods need to look at this serial poster and one who tries to distract everyone from their own theories.......the truth is always closer to home!!

Bit if a Freudian skip in my name there @SimeonOPatrick A give away there I'm afraid and sounds like someone from the past.
For some time I have always said that this was not a "who done" it case but a "why done it" and yes I agree that the truth is closer to home. So we agree on this point.
Going around the houses is often created by throwing lots of theories out there and what I try to do is to explain why some theories may not be plausible.
I haven't heard a good new one for months though.
Some contradictions in your posting here I'm afraid.

 

[keep-it-real]

It was well known that Claudia had a love of horses from an early age and had her her own pony when a young girl. In this BBC article about her disappearance I noted that it said she continued to ride up until she disappeared. I wondered if anyone knows if she owned her own horse or if she rode out of an riding school/equestrian centre.
these could potentially opened up a new group of people she may have came into contact with.

What happened to Claudia? - BBC News

 

[Popejohn3]

It was well known that Claudia had a love of horses from an early age and had her her own pony when a young girl. In this BBC article about her disappearance I noted that it said she continued to ride up until she disappeared. I wondered if anyone knows if she owned her own horse or if she rode out of an riding school/equestrian centre.
these could potentially opened up a new group of people she may have came into contact with.

What happened to Claudia? - BBC News

Good point !

 

[Popejohn3]

Is there a chance the police were not able to trace CL’s movements weeks / months before she disappeared as well as they claim or hoped to ?
After all it’s seems mobile footprints for the Acomb area only came about ( revealed ) years later ?!
Where did her car travel to before it broke down ?
Did she pick the smoker from his home or place of work ?

 

[MEKON]

Bit if a Freudian skip in my name there @SimeonOPatrick A give away there I'm afraid and sounds like someone from the past.
For some time I have always said that this was not a "who done" it case but a "why done it" and yes I agree that the truth is closer to home. So we agree on this point.
Going around the houses is often created by throwing lots of theories out there and what I try to do is to explain why some theories may not be plausible.
I haven't heard a good new one for months though.
Some contradictions in your posting here I'm afraid.

After looking for the age's of various folk; within the search this link came up :UK - UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #6


Within it was a theory of ''Langeez''. Thus perhaps we could use ''Langeez'' theory from the link in a sensible fashion without a 'shed load of insults and squabbling' . Hence a few obvious and not so obvious points to consider and discuss?:

• If we agree with the idea Claudia was not seen on her way to work; then Claudia must of spent the night elsewhere or tragically disappeared from inside or near her house on the night of the 18th (where CCTV couldn't pick her up) or somewhere near her house on the 19th when Claudia was on her way to work (where CCTV couldn't pick her up). I'll add a bit here by thinking outside the box and suggesting that it was Claudia on the video in the early morning of the 19th walking past the Post Office with the chap from the Co-op walking towards her (bearing in mind the Police want to speak to the chap from the Co-op; in connection with him seeing something but not being involved as such?)
  
• We all have various theories about who the 2 people were walking round the back of Claudia's house. Could we suggest the person was the partner of a lady that had a gripe with Claudia. Was he trying to get to talk to Claudia face to face because his partner was threatening to confront Claudia. And perhaps he was trying to sort it out; and at least offering her a lift in the morning so Claudia would avoid his wife. Furthermore; i think the 'Dark man' in his night appearance was trying to avoid a man? walking along the road in the direction of Claudia's as if they could be going to the Nags. I think the person 'Dark man' was trying to avoid was Mr Snelling. I certainly think 'Dark Man' was trying to avoid someone he knew. And is why the Police have perhaps leaned on Mr Snelling so he discloses who 'Dark Man' is?
• Has the person walking round the back of Claudia's house spoken face to face,over the phone or via text to offer or arrange a lift the next morning (bearing in mind the Police were interested in Car's in the vicinity etc). Additionally; has the Female got hold of her partners mobile without him knowing and sent Claudia a conflicting text to meet him in a certain spot . The point about the strange text that was apparently sent from Claudia's mobile to JK. Was this sent by Claudia as a poor excuse to JK, because Claudia expected 'hassle' and knew JK would intervene; and Claudia did not want JK to intervene . Or could of 'Dark Man' got hold of Claudia's phone when Claudia went to the Lavatory or for a quick shower. Had he already had plans to eliminate Claudia the next day. Did he want a person he thought would be the first to check where Claudia was if Claudia went quiet; to stay out the way. Thus; gaining more time for a 'clear up' and meaning the authorities would be 'less fresh onto the scent'.
• Has the female partner with a gripe tried to confront Claudia around the back of Claudia's house when Claudia went to work (bearing in mind the back alley was of interest to the Police; were they looking for hair, a necklace or button lost from a confrontation). Did Claudia shrug this confrontation off or avoid it by walking away and then made her way to the Nags Head Car Park in order to get into the attackers partners Car that Claudia originally arranged a lift with. Then did the Female with a gripe chase Claudia and then a non-fatal incident occur with a Car. Or did a fatal accident occur?
• Or;if it was Claudia walking to work in the video near the Post Office. Did she ''scarper'' out of the way to work on foot after an earlier incident?. Or did Claudia successfully get into the man's Car and proceed towards her workplace in some format

Thus; did A,B,C or even a D occur:

A - Did Claudia escape the incident on foot and a person or persons catch up with her after Claudia passed the Post Office?
B - Did Claudia escape the incident and then get into the car with a Man for the arranged lift to work?
C - Did Claudia become a victim of an accident due to an alteration with a Car?

D - Did Claudia escape the incident and then get into the car with a Man for the arranged lift. And then was dropped off along the route to work in order to get Claudia away from his Wife or because the driver had to go back and try and 'sort his Wife/Partner out'. Meaning the Male Driver and the Wife/Partner came back to find Claudia. Or could of just the Wife managed to 'dodge' her Husband/Partner in her Car and tracked Claudia down on her own. Similarly; has the Male driver come back on his own to track Claudia down



Bearing in mind that murder is normally committed by Males and usually by someone we know; and often in an argument due to a personal emotional reaction


Perhaps Claudia: 'did or did not have a new partner triangle' also provide a clue. Maybe JK was right when i'm sure she was of supposed to of said that Claudia did not have a new partner. Perhaps Claudia's old long term partner was telling the truth when he said Claudia had a new boyfriend. Claudia could of told him that in order for him to be jealous or 'back off'. Her work colleague maybe said Claudia had a new Boyfriend because he'd been talking to Claudia during a lift or at work. Perhaps he had asked Claudia....''how's Dan, is he still ringing you to try and make another go of it''. Maybe Claudia told the work colleague...'' he keeps on blinkin ringing me so i just told him i'd got another fella''.

Additionally; there could of been 2 incidents. And the later incident could of been the couple reported arguing (Claudia and a man). Furthermore; it could of even been the 2 perpetrators arguing)




Therefore ''Langeez'' theory i think has a lot of credibility:

The problem with this case is that Claudia was likely the instigator of a row. She went a step too far with someone's partner and the significant other found out and then confronted Claudia. We know that Claudia was avoiding her usual haunt and making excuses about not wanting to meet up that week. The only way to confront her would be either at her home-she probably wasn't answering the door or when she went to work on 19th.
So for Claudia to set off fro work an avoid detection did she leave by the back door and along the alleyway, through the Nags Car Park and out into Hewarth Road. If she was meeting someone for a lift, the instruction may have been "Meet me in Nags Car Park"Had she avoided the significant other on 18th in this way?
So the alley man-who were they, was it a women? Were they checking at night to see if she was in and in the morning checking Claudia was up and getting ready for work?

When Claudia left via the back door and approached the alley, wa someone waiting for her to ask "You been messing with my man?" A scuffle (similar time one reported by MOP) Claudia runs through Nags Car park and down lane between pub and terrace block of houses out in front of car driving at 22 MPH as earlier reported. Car breaks to avoid her but hits her and she falls- But was she gone before she hit the ground? Probably not. The killer blow was likely as she hit the kerb or road.
And so. Was there a killer-probably not?
The crime was likely to be the covering up of the accident and hence the wall of silence.
Is this why people can live with themselves and stay quiet. Is this why DO waited a year to report the new boyfriend story and strangely not pick her up that morning? Is this why SC Continues to defend her friends?

 

[MEKON]

Using the source of Tim Newburn - CRIMINOLOGY (2007) Chapter 20 - p439-444

Furthermore; the work of Newman paraphrases? with some understatement that Mitchell (1990: 46) says that it: ...''appears that those convicted of murder are unlikely to be people pursuing professional careers''. Newburn then suggests Mitchells work adds: that only 4 out of the 250 people studied fell into a category of pursing a professional career. Additionally 48% of the sample were in non-professional occupations and 46% were unemployed.


Nonprofessional Vs. Professional Jobs



The work of Mitchell suggests that approx 4 out of every 250 people that commit murder are professionals ; that is approx 1.6 %


Professional Requires Advanced Learning
A quick way to determine if a job is considered a professional one is the level of learning required. If the job customarily requires a bachelor's, master's degree or Ph.D., it's considered a professional job. Professional jobs include:

• teachers
  
• doctors/surgeons/dentists
  
• accountants
  
• lawyers
  
• engineers
  
• architects
  
• artists/authors
  
• designers
  
• chemists
  
• editors
  
• scientists
  
• registered nurses

Of course, what constitutes advanced learning is a bit subjective and open to interpretation. It doesn't mean that a college degree is necessarily required. Although most of these jobs do require a degree, all that's required of a best-selling novelist is a great story line and a way with words. No one asks an artist if he studied the principles of painting before purchasing one of his masterpieces. But these jobs do require a high level of skill. Employers that hire artists and writers for staff positions usually look for those with degrees in fine arts, English or journalism.

Registered nurse positions are confusing, too. With a two-year, associate degree in nursing, a nurse who passes the licensing exam becomes a registered nurse, and she's still an RN if she earns an advance degree like a BSN and a MSN. Another determination of a professional job is if most people in that job have college degrees. If you worked your way up to become an editor, but you don't have a college degree, you're still in a professional job because most editors have college degrees.



Additionally the work of Mitchell suggests that approx 48 % of people that commit murder are from the non-professional work sector:




Nonprofessional Often Means Hourly Wages
Still another criterion for categorizing jobs as professional or nonprofessional is how the position pays. Not how much, but whether it pays an hourly wage for nonprofessional work or a salary for professionals. Workers who are paid hourly are paid for all the hours they work, and if they work more than 40 hours in a week, they're paid overtime for those hours. In most cases, overtime is paid at the rate of 1.5 times the employee's hourly wage. Examples of nonprofessional jobs include:

• broadcast/sound technicians
  
• emergency medical technicians (EMTs)
  
• drafters
  
• salespersons
  
• plumbers
  
• brick/stone masons
  
• electricians
  
• installers
• mechanics
• carpenters
• machine operators
• food service workers
• medical assistants

Certainly, these jobs require additional knowledge and skills. If you call 911 in an emergency, you expect that the EMTs who arrive have had training in life-saving techniques. But the training for nonprofessional jobs is typically learned on the job, as an assistant or an apprentice, or in a short training or certificate program.

Hourly workers often need to have approval to work overtime because the company is required to pay them for extra hours, usually at a higher hourly rate than the worker's regular pay.





Furthermore; the work of Mitchell suggests that approx 46 % of people that commit murder are unemployed

 

[MEKON]

Using the source of Tim Newburn - CRIMINOLOGY (2007) Chapter 20 - p439-444

Furthermore; the work of Newman paraphrases? with some understatement that Mitchell (1990: 46) says that it: ...''appears that those convicted of murder are unlikely to be people pursuing professional careers''. Newburn then suggests Mitchells work adds: that only 4 out of the 250 people studied fell into a category of pursing a professional career. Additionally 48% of the sample were in non-professional occupations and 46% were unemployed.



Nonprofessional Vs. Professional Jobs



The work of Mitchell suggests that approx 4 out of every 250 people that commit murder are professionals ; that is approx 1.6 %


Professional Requires Advanced Learning
A quick way to determine if a job is considered a professional one is the level of learning required. If the job customarily requires a bachelor's, master's degree or Ph.D., it's considered a professional job. Professional jobs include:

• teachers
  
• doctors/surgeons/dentists
  
• accountants
  
• lawyers
  
• engineers
  
• architects
  
• artists/authors
  
• designers
  
• chemists
  
• editors
  
• scientists
  
• registered nurses

Of course, what constitutes advanced learning is a bit subjective and open to interpretation. It doesn't mean that a college degree is necessarily required. Although most of these jobs do require a degree, all that's required of a best-selling novelist is a great story line and a way with words. No one asks an artist if he studied the principles of painting before purchasing one of his masterpieces. But these jobs do require a high level of skill. Employers that hire artists and writers for staff positions usually look for those with degrees in fine arts, English or journalism.

Registered nurse positions are confusing, too. With a two-year, associate degree in nursing, a nurse who passes the licensing exam becomes a registered nurse, and she's still an RN if she earns an advance degree like a BSN and a MSN. Another determination of a professional job is if most people in that job have college degrees. If you worked your way up to become an editor, but you don't have a college degree, you're still in a professional job because most editors have college degrees.



Additionally the work of Mitchell suggests that approx 48 % of people that commit murder are from the non-professional work sector:




Nonprofessional Often Means Hourly Wages
Still another criterion for categorizing jobs as professional or nonprofessional is how the position pays. Not how much, but whether it pays an hourly wage for nonprofessional work or a salary for professionals. Workers who are paid hourly are paid for all the hours they work, and if they work more than 40 hours in a week, they're paid overtime for those hours. In most cases, overtime is paid at the rate of 1.5 times the employee's hourly wage. Examples of nonprofessional jobs include:

• broadcast/sound technicians
  
• emergency medical technicians (EMTs)
  
• drafters
  
• salespersons
  
• plumbers
  
• brick/stone masons
  
• electricians
  
• installers
• mechanics
• carpenters
• machine operators
• food service workers
• medical assistants

Certainly, these jobs require additional knowledge and skills. If you call 911 in an emergency, you expect that the EMTs who arrive have had training in life-saving techniques. But the training for nonprofessional jobs is typically learned on the job, as an assistant or an apprentice, or in a short training or certificate program.

Hourly workers often need to have approval to work overtime because the company is required to pay them for extra hours, usually at a higher hourly rate than the worker's regular pay.





Furthermore; the work of Mitchell suggests that approx 46 % of people that commit murder are unemployed

 

[Popejohn3]

After looking for the age's of various folk; within the search this link came up :UK - UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #6


Within it was a theory of ''Langeez''. Thus perhaps we could use ''Langeez'' theory from the link in a sensible fashion without a 'shed load of insults and squabbling' . Hence a few obvious and not so obvious points to consider and discuss?:

• If we agree with the idea Claudia was not seen on her way to work; then Claudia must of spent the night elsewhere or tragically disappeared from inside or near her house on the night of the 18th (where CCTV couldn't pick her up) or somewhere near her house on the 19th when Claudia was on her way to work (where CCTV couldn't pick her up). I'll add a bit here by thinking outside the box and suggesting that it was Claudia on the video in the early morning of the 19th walking past the Post Office with the chap from the Co-op walking towards her (bearing in mind the Police want to speak to the chap from the Co-op; in connection with him seeing something but not being involved as such?)
  
• We all have various theories about who the 2 people were walking round the back of Claudia's house. Could we suggest the person was the partner of a lady that had a gripe with Claudia. Was he trying to get to talk to Claudia face to face because his partner was threatening to confront Claudia. And perhaps he was trying to sort it out; and at least offering her a lift in the morning so Claudia would avoid his wife. Furthermore; i think the 'Dark man' in his night appearance was trying to avoid a man? walking along the road in the direction of Claudia's as if they could be going to the Nags. I think the person 'Dark man' was trying to avoid was Mr Snelling. I certainly think 'Dark Man' was trying to avoid someone he knew. And is why the Police have perhaps leaned on Mr Snelling so he discloses who 'Dark Man' is?
• Has the person walking round the back of Claudia's house spoken face to face,over the phone or via text to offer or arrange a lift the next morning (bearing in mind the Police were interested in Car's in the vicinity etc). Additionally; has the Female got hold of her partners mobile without him knowing and sent Claudia a conflicting text to meet him in a certain spot . The point about the strange text that was apparently sent from Claudia's mobile to JK. Was this sent by Claudia as a poor excuse to JK, because Claudia expected 'hassle' and knew JK would intervene; and Claudia did not want JK to intervene . Or could of 'Dark Man' got hold of Claudia's phone when Claudia went to the Lavatory or for a quick shower. Had he already had plans to eliminate Claudia the next day. Did he want a person he thought would be the first to check where Claudia was if Claudia went quiet; to stay out the way. Thus; gaining more time for a 'clear up' and meaning the authorities would be 'less fresh onto the scent'.
• Has the female partner with a gripe tried to confront Claudia around the back of Claudia's house when Claudia went to work (bearing in mind the back alley was of interest to the Police; were they looking for hair, a necklace or button lost from a confrontation). Did Claudia shrug this confrontation off or avoid it by walking away and then made her way to the Nags Head Car Park in order to get into the attackers partners Car that Claudia originally arranged a lift with. Then did the Female with a gripe chase Claudia and then a non-fatal incident occur with a Car. Or did a fatal accident occur?
• Or;if it was Claudia walking to work in the video near the Post Office. Did she ''scarper'' out of the way to work on foot after an earlier incident?. Or did Claudia successfully get into the man's Car and proceed towards her workplace in some format

Thus; did A,B,C or even a D occur:

A - Did Claudia escape the incident on foot and a person or persons catch up with her after Claudia passed the Post Office?
B - Did Claudia escape the incident and then get into the car with a Man for the arranged lift to work?
C - Did Claudia become a victim of an accident due to an alteration with a Car?

D - Did Claudia escape the incident and then get into the car with a Man for the arranged lift. And then was dropped off along the route to work in order to get Claudia away from his Wife or because the driver had to go back and try and 'sort his Wife/Partner out'. Meaning the Male Driver and the Wife/Partner came back to find Claudia. Or could of just the Wife managed to 'dodge' her Husband/Partner in her Car and tracked Claudia down on her own. Similarly; has the Male driver come back on his own to track Claudia down



Bearing in mind that murder is normally committed by Males and usually by someone we know; and often in an argument due to a personal emotional reaction


Perhaps Claudia: 'did or did not have a new partner triangle' also provide a clue. Maybe JK was right when i'm sure she was of supposed to of said that Claudia did not have a new partner. Perhaps Claudia's old long term partner was telling the truth when he said Claudia had a new boyfriend. Claudia could of told him that in order for him to be jealous or 'back off'. Her work colleague maybe said Claudia had a new Boyfriend because he'd been talking to Claudia during a lift or at work. Perhaps he had asked Claudia....''how's Dan, is he still ringing you to try and make another go of it''. Maybe Claudia told the work colleague...'' he keeps on blinkin ringing me so i just told him i'd got another fella''.

Additionally; there could of been 2 incidents. And the later incident could of been the couple reported arguing (Claudia and a man). Furthermore; it could of even been the 2 perpetrators arguing)




Therefore ''Langeez'' theory i think has a lot of credibility:

The problem with this case is that Claudia was likely the instigator of a row. She went a step too far with someone's partner and the significant other found out and then confronted Claudia. We know that Claudia was avoiding her usual haunt and making excuses about not wanting to meet up that week. The only way to confront her would be either at her home-she probably wasn't answering the door or when she went to work on 19th.
So for Claudia to set off fro work an avoid detection did she leave by the back door and along the alleyway, through the Nags Car Park and out into Hewarth Road. If she was meeting someone for a lift, the instruction may have been "Meet me in Nags Car Park"Had she avoided the significant other on 18th in this way?
So the alley man-who were they, was it a women? Were they checking at night to see if she was in and in the morning checking Claudia was up and getting ready for work?

When Claudia left via the back door and approached the alley, wa someone waiting for her to ask "You been messing with my man?" A scuffle (similar time one reported by MOP) Claudia runs through Nags Car park and down lane between pub and terrace block of houses out in front of car driving at 22 MPH as earlier reported. Car breaks to avoid her but hits her and she falls- But was she gone before she hit the ground? Probably not. The killer blow was likely as she hit the kerb or road.
And so. Was there a killer-probably not?
The crime was likely to be the covering up of the accident and hence the wall of silence.
Is this why people can live with themselves and stay quiet. Is this why DO waited a year to report the new boyfriend story and strangely not pick her up that morning? Is this why SC Continues to defend her friends?

You can still answer my question: I asked this 3 times now Have you ever contacted Claudia police with specific information on the case ?
Yes or no ?
If yes good for you
If no and you do know something or strongly suspect something, do the right thing and contact cold case people and do it YESTERDAY !