I think many of us have formed the opinion that Leah was besotted with Mr X and he did not give a xxxx about her.
I myself would use the term unrequited love to describe this situation.
I think many of us have formed the opinion that Leah was besotted with Mr X and he did not give a xxxx about her.
A few thoughts extracted from a number of very interesting new postings.
Re who she met at the Travelodge, LE would have checked out all her known friends and associates so if it was her known work colleague they would know and he would have had to give an alibi for that time if he was not with Leah.
But that meeting may have been checked out and had no relevance to her disappearance.
Thats an area where feedback from LE would help narrow our search for the truth.
It seems Leah had a small circle of friend and colleagues. These were at Work, at her Taekwondo club and via Social media.
She was described as fairly shy and spent a lot of time in her room reading. DCI Neil Kentish who was initially in charge of the investigation said she was a heavy user of social media.
Have we ruled out a relationship developed on line culminating with a meeting or meetings and an abduction?
An unusual date
Her father dropped her off at Jurys inn on the 3rd February. Thats the date given but its a Sunday, an unusual day for a night out drinking with friends IF you are working the next day.
LE would know if she was at work on 4th February
From the Travel lodge where we now know she stayed, (having not tried to hide it by paying cash) she may then have walked to work, as its no longer than she normally walks from home, or got a lift with person she stayed with. So LE should have checked this out. If she got a taxi to work again that might have been tractable. Its the fact it was a Sunday night I find interesting. Again LE having questioned certain individuals regularly I expect they understand who she was with that evening, and who has an alibi for that Sunday evening.
LE said they had scanned some of her social media. I assume from this she did not take her 'device' with her so they would be able to examine some of her social interactions.
There was a post that went into a lot of detail about the number of times LE searched all the families cars and homes. I cannot find that post, so I guess it may have been deleted by Admin having likely come from FB. It had a lot of information I had not seen on any other posts. If you can identify it please let me know.
Reading all of the posts from start to finish its so difficult to narrow down the options. The limited information from LE makes our role more challenging.
LE is aware of these posts I only hope some of the ideas are helpful.
A few thoughts extracted from a number of very interesting new postings.
Re who she met at the Travelodge, LE would have checked out all her known friends and associates so if it was her known work colleague they would know and he would have had to give an alibi for that time if he was not with Leah.
But that meeting may have been checked out and had no relevance to her disappearance.
Thats an area where feedback from LE would help narrow our search for the truth.
It seems Leah had a small circle of friend and colleagues. These were at Work, at her Taekwondo club and via Social media.
She was described as fairly shy and spent a lot of time in her room reading. DCI Neil Kentish who was initially in charge of the investigation said she was a heavy user of social media.
Have we ruled out a relationship developed on line culminating with a meeting or meetings and an abduction?
An unusual date
Her father dropped her off at Jurys inn on the 3rd February. Thats the date given but its a Sunday, an unusual day for a night out drinking with friends IF you are working the next day.
LE would know if she was at work on 4th February
From the Travel lodge where we now know she stayed, (having not tried to hide it by paying cash) she may then have walked to work, as its no longer than she normally walks from home, or got a lift with person she stayed with. So LE should have checked this out. If she got a taxi to work again that might have been tractable. Its the fact it was a Sunday night I find interesting. Again LE having questioned certain individuals regularly I expect they understand who she was with that evening, and who has an alibi for that Sunday evening.
LE said they had scanned some of her social media. I assume from this she did not take her 'device' with her so they would be able to examine some of her social interactions.
There was a post that went into a lot of detail about the number of times LE searched all the families cars and homes. I cannot find that post, so I guess it may have been deleted by Admin having likely come from FB. It had a lot of information I had not seen on any other posts. If you can identify it please let me know.
Reading all of the posts from start to finish its so difficult to narrow down the options. The limited information from LE makes our role more challenging.
LE is aware of these posts I only hope some of the ideas are helpful.
Cannot recall if it has been mentioned if Mr X is UK born or not, but apparently it is not uncommon (imo, speculation) for some foreign born persons to have a fear and distrust of LE and are therefore disinclined to give them any information at all.I didn't find the post about searching the families homes but I did find this dated 23 March 2020 in the MK Citizen:
John says he and his wife Clare have provided police with "evidence" early on to prove 19-year-old Leah and Mr X were more than just good friends.
He said: "We worry that the police did not look more closely at him, his family, his friends. They didn't search cars or homes or workplaces. They searched the area he lives in, but that was all. He will not give permission to look at messages between the both of you. He destroyed those messages. Police searched our house five times ...They searched Leah's brother's home. They searched our relatives' homes. They searched our cars, our workplaces, our internet history. It feels as if we were under suspicion."
Later in the interview he also went on to say:
John revealed he asked police to check for DNA on the clothes Mr X wore on Valentine's Day 2019, the day before Leah disappeared. This was the evening she fibbed to her parents and slipped out of the house, seemingly for a mystery assignation. The police will not check the clothes he wore Valentine's Day," said John. "They 'encourage' us to protect his anonymity."
He claims Mr X has lied about the relationship from the offset.
I find it odd that when a young woman has disappeared that a person the parents of the young woman say was having an affair with her is allowed to say to the police no, you can't look at my phone. Is this normal? Surely the police would want to see the messages on that phone and refusal would be an immediate red flag and cause the police to make an arrest or do whatever they felt necessary to gain access to the phone messages?I didn't find the post about searching the families homes but I did find this dated 23 March 2020 in the MK Citizen:
John says he and his wife Clare have provided police with "evidence" early on to prove 19-year-old Leah and Mr X were more than just good friends.
He said: "We worry that the police did not look more closely at him, his family, his friends. They didn't search cars or homes or workplaces. They searched the area he lives in, but that was all. He will not give permission to look at messages between the both of you. He destroyed those messages. Police searched our house five times ...They searched Leah's brother's home. They searched our relatives' homes. They searched our cars, our workplaces, our internet history. It feels as if we were under suspicion."
Later in the interview he also went on to say:
John revealed he asked police to check for DNA on the clothes Mr X wore on Valentine's Day 2019, the day before Leah disappeared. This was the evening she fibbed to her parents and slipped out of the house, seemingly for a mystery assignation. The police will not check the clothes he wore Valentine's Day," said John. "They 'encourage' us to protect his anonymity."
He claims Mr X has lied about the relationship from the offset.
In my experience that's certainly not limited to "foreign born persons" !Cannot recall if it has been mentioned if Mr X is UK born or not, but apparently it is not uncommon (imo, speculation) for some foreign born persons to have a fear and distrust of LE and are therefore disinclined to give them any information at all.
In my experience that's certainly not limited to "foreign born persons" !
Lol, that is true!In my experience that's certainly not limited to "foreign born persons" !
A few thoughts extracted from a number of very interesting new postings.
Re who she met at the Travelodge, LE would have checked out all her known friends and associates so if it was her known work colleague they would know and he would have had to give an alibi for that time if he was not with Leah.
But that meeting may have been checked out and had no relevance to her disappearance.
Thats an area where feedback from LE would help narrow our search for the truth.
It seems Leah had a small circle of friend and colleagues. These were at Work, at her Taekwondo club and via Social media.
She was described as fairly shy and spent a lot of time in her room reading. DCI Neil Kentish who was initially in charge of the investigation said she was a heavy user of social media.
Have we ruled out a relationship developed on line culminating with a meeting or meetings and an abduction?
An unusual date
Her father dropped her off at Jurys inn on the 3rd February. Thats the date given but its a Sunday, an unusual day for a night out drinking with friends IF you are working the next day.
LE would know if she was at work on 4th February
From the Travel lodge where we now know she stayed, (having not tried to hide it by paying cash) she may then have walked to work, as its no longer than she normally walks from home, or got a lift with person she stayed with. So LE should have checked this out. If she got a taxi to work again that might have been tractable. Its the fact it was a Sunday night I find interesting. Again LE having questioned certain individuals regularly I expect they understand who she was with that evening, and who has an alibi for that Sunday evening.
LE said they had scanned some of her social media. I assume from this she did not take her 'device' with her so they would be able to examine some of her social interactions.
There was a post that went into a lot of detail about the number of times LE searched all the families cars and homes. I cannot find that post, so I guess it may have been deleted by Admin having likely come from FB. It had a lot of information I had not seen on any other posts. If you can identify it please let me know.
Reading all of the posts from start to finish its so difficult to narrow down the options. The limited information from LE makes our role more challenging.
LE is aware of these posts I only hope some of the ideas are helpful.
I dont think she was worried about a tracker but she turned off all her tracked activities such as Google Facebook Snapchat ect and it appears she turned off the emergency service tracker so you phone can signal the emergency services when you call on a bad line get disconnected ect, I think she didn't want anyone to know her movements for that night atleast which makes me think she was preparing to leave the following day as she didn't turn them back on when I was saying about other family problems hayden had battled with his mental health for many years and in 2014 was prescribed a antipsychotic which his Dr said he didn't always take and in October before his death he said he felt unsupported by his family with his mental health and grief with his missing sister he seemed to pick up come the beginning of November for his dr to decide after all those years he was in a better place to come off the medication as he wasn't expressing psychosis sadly a few weeks later hayden ended his life, the parents house was searched 5 times there work places wore searched there cars wore searched and there interenet history searched haydens house and car wore also searched as was another family members this was what leahs father said in a interview
It was never confirmed who leah met in the hotel the family assumed Mr x, when the bank statement came through and they realised she had stayed at a different hotel they asked the friends she was supposed to have stayed there with her who claimed they wore not with her that night when they went to check the cctv at the hotel it had been deleted it auto deletes after a number of days, so again no ones knows who she met there the family assumed Mr x but I think the police would have asked him about that night and his where abouts
Leah Croucher: Parents plea for missing Milton Keynes teen
Police said they had two unconfirmed sightings of a girl who "may be Leah".
Ch Insp Neil Kentish, of Thames Valley Police, said the females were seen in the area of Teardrop Lakes at approximately 08:45 GMT on 15 February.
He added that Leah had not used her mobile phone or accessed her bank account since going missing.
Interesting. Human remains were found in Northamptonshire very recently.Another post also mentioned about the taxi's being questioned, it was quickly removed but a few weeks after Leah disappeared there was a letter/email posted allegedly from TVP requesting information on any journeys around the area Leah disappeared; her home & work address on the 15th Feb but also at 2 different times the evening before.
What I found odd at the time is it was a Taxi firm nearer Northampton.