UK UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #15

[keep-it-real]

Look no further.
Claudia Lawrence's phone was still active near home four hours after she failed to turn up for work | Daily Mail Online

According to this article her phone was still active near her home at 10am on the morning of the 19th - doesn’t that suggest she never walked to work that morning?

Unfortunately not.
The radius of the signal that bounces off the Uni mast covers up to 9 miles, while Claudias house lies within that area the signal radius reaches as far as Tockwith village. So the phone's location could be anywhere within that 9 mile signal radius which of course includes Melrosegate road, you also need to consider if the phone was still in CL's possession when the signals on Thurs 19th were transmitted as her last verbal communication using the phone was when she spoke to her mother and father on Weds evening.

 

[Blonderabbit]

Unfortunately not.
The radius of the signal that bounces off the Uni mast covers up to 9 miles, while Claudias house lies within that area the signal radius reaches as far as Tockwith village. So the phone's location could be anywhere within that 9 mile signal radius which of course includes Melrosegate road, you also need to consider if the phone was still in CL's possession when the signals on Thurs 19th were transmitted as her last verbal communication using the phone was when she spoke to her mother and father on Weds evening.

I would strongly dispute your response - see link
BBC NEWS | UK | Mobile phones - the new fingerprints
This is crucial evidence used in the Soham Murders from 2002 - long before 2009 - in 2009 it was technology which could locate to pin point accuracy - remember it’s not just Claudias phone it also exposes P.O.I.s handsets as well. Whilst you cannot commit someone of a crime purely based on a mobile handset signal/location - it gives you a jolly good idea who’s where and when.

 

[Vixey]

Unfortunately not.
The radius of the signal that bounces off the Uni mast covers up to 9 miles, while Claudias house lies within that area the signal radius reaches as far as Tockwith village. So the phone's location could be anywhere within that 9 mile signal radius which of course includes Melrosegate road, you also need to consider if the phone was still in CL's possession when the signals on Thurs 19th were transmitted as her last verbal communication using the phone was when she spoke to her mother and father on Weds evening.

The phone signal even back then could be narrowed down less than a nine mile radius I thought. That’s how they knew Claudia was at home when her parents called. Unless she had a landline x

 

[Popejohn3]

How come it was years before they announced that Claudia was frequenting the Acombe area and this through her mobile footprints ?
NorthYorkshire could be or was completely different to other areas say like London ?
Fewer masts?

 

[Blonderabbit]

The phone signal even back then could be narrowed down less than a nine mile radius I thought. That’s how they knew Claudia was at home when her parents called. Unless she had a landline x

Yes in 2009 - there weren’t just masts, there were home routers using wireless technology and hotspots.

 

[Blonderabbit]

How come it was years before they announced that Claudia was frequenting the Acombe area and this through her mobile footprints ?
NorthYorkshire could be or was completely different to other areas say like London ?
Fewer masts?

The way in which NYP choose to manage case information was strategic. It suited the investigation to release the Acomb connection. However on its own merit it demonstrates NYP knew exactly where and when Claudias handset was - upto and beyond her disappearance

 

[keep-it-real]

I would strongly dispute your response - see link
BBC NEWS | UK | Mobile phones - the new fingerprints
This is crucial evidence used in the Soham Murders from 2002 - long before 2009 - in 2009 it was technology which could locate to pin point accuracy - remember it’s not just Claudias phone it also exposes P.O.I.s handsets as well. Whilst you cannot commit someone of a crime purely based on a mobile handset signal/location - it gives you a jolly good idea who’s where and when.

I think most people question the official line the NYP put out about being able to pinpoint the signals the mobile phone transmitted its one of many details people feel are being withheld. Thats the problem you come up against when you are looking into an open case, certain details are withheld because they are case sensitive. It doesnt help us because even if you put the question to Cold Case they cannot give you an answer if that particular detail is case sensitive.
What they say is the signal was transmitted within a 9 mile radius of Uni

To answer your last point
We know Claudia was in possession of the phone when she spoke her parents. But as we dont know what happened to Claudia after that we cannot be sure if the mble phoned remained with her, or was taken from her. If more than one person was involved in her disappearance any one of them could have taken possession of the phone and departed the scene this would mean the movements of the phone would bear no relation to the movements of Claudia.

Personally I would just like NYP to confirm... at which location Claudia was at when she spoke to her parents on Weds 18th March

 

[keep-it-real]

The phone signal even back then could be narrowed down less than a nine mile radius I thought. That’s how they knew Claudia was at home when her parents called. Unless she had a landline x

not sure about you but I can only think these exact locations are case sensitive evidence @Vixey.

Joan thought she was home when she spoke to her but the NYP website just makes reference to calls not her location..The link on the same page to the crimewatch programme the presenter says we cant sure but we think she was home when she took that call...
We are always left in limbo
Claudia Lawrence uses her telephone

She def has bt lines running into the house one to the front bedroom the other to the lounge.
If Tri-lamba delta is looking in perhaps they could get a closer look at the object arrowed this pic of CL's Lounge

 

[keep-it-real]

The way in which NYP choose to manage case information was strategic. It suited the investigation to release the Acomb connection. However on its own merit it demonstrates NYP knew exactly where and when Claudias handset was - upto and beyond her disappearance

I agree about management of case information.
What's released publicly how and when its released ie via newspapers or tv and the content is micro managed by law enforcement.

Can I ask would you still have viewed her disappearance in the same way if you had read an article in the newspaper saying Claudia who failed to show up for work on the 19th had been visiting the Acomb area alongside an article in the same newspaper about a man from Aycliffe who was supposed to be working in Leeds also went missing on the 19th - traces on his mobile and cash card suggested he could have been in the Acomb area of York?
( he was later found and reunited with his family)

Im not suggesting he was responsible in any way for Claudias disappearance .. I use the story to highlight 2 different stories of 2 different people disappearing in the same area on the same day and the timing the reporting of them and how the public may respond to them.

It will be interesting in the future if it comes to light that Claudia was in Acomb sometime on Weds 18th/ Thurs 19th.

 

[Blonderabbit]

I think most people question the official line the NYP put out about being able to pinpoint the signals the mobile phone transmitted its one of many details people feel are being withheld. Thats the problem you come up against when you are looking into an open case, certain details are withheld because they are case sensitive. It doesnt help us because even if you put the question to Cold Case they cannot give you an answer if that particular detail is case sensitive.
What they say is the signal was transmitted within a 9 mile radius of Uni

To answer your last point
We know Claudia was in possession of the phone when she spoke her parents. But as we dont know what happened to Claudia after that we cannot be sure if the mble phoned remained with her, or was taken from her. If more than one person was involved in her disappearance any one of them could have taken possession of the phone and departed the scene this would mean the movements of the phone would bear no relation to the movements of Claudia.

Personally I would just like NYP to confirm... at which location Claudia was at when she spoke to her parents on Weds 18th March

If Claudias phone was taken from her after calls to Mum and Dad - then she didn’t walk to work the next day. So you can rule out any related sightings on the 19th and focus on the evening of the 18th. IMO

 

[Blonderabbit]

I think most people question the official line the NYP put out about being able to pinpoint the signals the mobile phone transmitted its one of many details people feel are being withheld. Thats the problem you come up against when you are looking into an open case, certain details are withheld because they are case sensitive. It doesnt help us because even if you put the question to Cold Case they cannot give you an answer if that particular detail is case sensitive.
What they say is the signal was transmitted within a 9 mile radius of Uni

To answer your last point
We know Claudia was in possession of the phone when she spoke her parents. But as we dont know what happened to Claudia after that we cannot be sure if the mble phoned remained with her, or was taken from her. If more than one person was involved in her disappearance any one of them could have taken possession of the phone and departed the scene this would mean the movements of the phone would bear no relation to the movements of Claudia.

Personally I would just like NYP to confirm... at which location Claudia was at when she spoke to her parents on Weds 18th March

Look at the evidence - look at the article I quoted above - “her phone remained close to her home until 10am on the 19th” - it’s probable she had come to harm by then, as there was no communication since 8.23pm on the 18th. To a degree it doesn’t matter if it was with Claudia or without Claudia. Her known behaviour is she was an avid texter - she would not go anywhere without it. It’s close to her home till 10am because that is where she came to harm. Likely before 9.01pm on the 18th.

 

[Popejohn3]

Look at the evidence - look at the article I quoted above - “her phone remained close to her home until 10am on the 19th” - it’s probable she had come to harm by then, as there was no communication since 8.23pm on the 18th. To a degree it doesn’t matter if it was with Claudia or without Claudia. Her known behaviour is she was an avid texter - she would not go anywhere without it. It’s close to her home till 10am because that is where she came to harm. Likely before 9.01pm on the 18th.

Definition of close … up to 9 miles can also be referred as ‘close’

 

[keep-it-real]

Look at the evidence - look at the article I quoted above - “her phone remained close to her home until 10am on the 19th” - it’s probable she had come to harm by then, as there was no communication since 8.23pm on the 18th. To a degree it doesn’t matter if it was with Claudia or without Claudia. Her known behaviour is she was an avid texter - she would not go anywhere without it. It’s close to her home till 10am because that is where she came to harm. Likely before 9.01pm on the 18th.

Can I ask in your opinion what distance would you consider to be 'close'?

 

[keep-it-real]

Look at the evidence - look at the article I quoted above - “her phone remained close to her home until 10am on the 19th” - it’s probable she had come to harm by then, as there was no communication since 8.23pm on the 18th. To a degree it doesn’t matter if it was with Claudia or without Claudia. Her known behaviour is she was an avid texter - she would not go anywhere without it. It’s close to her home till 10am because that is where she came to harm. Likely before 9.01pm on the 18th.

I beg to differ on this point.
Either Claudia herself turned her phone off herself or it was turned off by someone else - or if you want to cover all possibilities by some other means.
If Claudia kept possession of the phone but turned it off herself we could be looking at a very different situation.

 

[keep-it-real]

If Claudias phone was taken from her after calls to Mum and Dad - then she didn’t walk to work the next day. So you can rule out any related sightings on the 19th and focus on the evening of the 18th. IMO

I think we are both in agreement that the 18th was a key day..

One things for sure we know she didnt arrive at work on Thurs 19th.
We know she arrived at work on the 18th and are given details of some of her movements after leaving work. But we dont know how she arrived at work on the 18th
I emailed Cold Case last year to ask specifically if she was caught on cctv on her way to and from work on the 16th,17th,18th and morn of the 19th March and the times of the recorded sightings.
I got an immediate reponse that she wasnt caught on any cameras on the 19th and she wasnt seen or heard from again after the evening of the 18th.
The other dates they would have to get back to me on.. Unfortunately I have not yet received a reply re 16th,& 17th & morn of 18th, as she would have been arriving to work on the 17th after a nite with a mystery man I think how she travelled to work on these days and from what location could give us a better picture of her movements prior to disappearing.

 

[Popejohn3]

Does anyone have or know of a description of the man that went into the pub and talked about finding a similar bag to Claudia’s ?

 

[Popejohn3]

Does anyone have or know of a description of the man that went into the pub and talked about finding a similar bag to Claudia’s ?

Come on Jim , can you describe him to us ??

 

[BryterLayter]

Come on Jim , can you describe him to us ??

The Police can’t have thought this was important or worth issuing an appeal as there is nothing official on this, only landlord quoted in mainstream media?

 

[keep-it-real]

The Police can’t have thought this was important or worth issuing an appeal as there is nothing official on this, only landlord quoted in mainstream media?

Perhaps he did go to the police and report it.. Does this appeal on the NYP website relate to his find?
Claudia's blue and grey Karrimor rucksack

 

[Popejohn3]

Perhaps he did go to the police and report it.. Does this appeal on the NYP website relate to his find?
Claudia's blue and grey Karrimor rucksack

Yes I believe it does mention the rucksack referred To by the man.
This man could easily have witnessed the whole thing !