UK UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #14

[Blonderabbit]

Not that I am aware of. What directed you to suggest the SL350 in the first instance?
I have just watched the video again and the car seems to be too short I suspect. The angle of the rear plate still points me back to something small and compact like a TT.

Frustratingly not enough attention is being given to the white van Parked (with lights on) over the road from 46.
Surely the Lime Court cameras would be able to help identify that vehicle. The driver may have had a dash cam or have witnessed something or was possibly heading back to Cyprus from Glasgow.

If Sammons was in the UK to collect vehicles would be not have mentioned this to Claudia when she text him to ask “How are you Nug?”

 

[UKjester]

Summons was not in the Uk afaik

You are right, it was Campbell and friends apparently. You would have expected the fact they were travelling to the UK might have been mentioned by Sammons to CL.

The timing of them being in the UK and also Webster being away from the NH b&b is certainly peculiar.

 

[UKjester]

The old beetles had a square rear reg plate mounted on the boot lid so unlikely to have been that :-(

 

[Blonderabbit]

The old beetles had a square rear reg plate mounted on the boot lid so unlikely to have been that :-(

the other way, to skin the cat is to look at Poi cars and see if something matches up. it is not a tt. I saw a merc pull out in front of me today and the rear just caught my eye took the reg and looked it up - looked against others. if I play the footage back and just click back and forth, sometimes it seems to show better frames than others - the car in front has a weird reflection on the front almost like it could have a motorcycle parked across its front. the van across the road you draw attention to is just waiting for the bus to pass, it could be linked of course.

 

[LuluR38]

Let’s hope Jim is reading this because why would he make it up ?
Plus he said ‘we’ told him to go to police !

But didn’t ask a name or the pics to be sent to someone in the pub. When a beloved could do not wrong customer that everyone loved has vanished into thin air you wouldn’t ask a name or get a number. Was it even public knowledge on the Friday (bearing in mind she wasn’t reported missing until 2.07pm) that her bag was even missing... the pub was also crawling with police and press around this time if reports are accurate. I therefore don’t believe that no one else saw him and these bag pics other than Jim and no one else has mentioned the mystery man besides him. So yes I think it’s nonsense.

 

[LuluR38]

But didn’t ask a name or the pics to be sent to someone in the pub. When a beloved could do not wrong customer that everyone loved has vanished into thin air you wouldn’t ask a name or get a number. Was it even public knowledge on the Friday (bearing in mind she wasn’t reported missing until 2.07pm) that her bag was even missing... the pub was also crawling with police and press around this time if reports are accurate. I therefore don’t believe that no one else saw him and these bag pics other than Jim and no one else has mentioned the mystery man besides him. So yes I think it’s nonsense.

And I believe it is made up to deflect attention away from the nags

 

[Vixey]

And I believe it is made up to deflect attention away from the nags

I also wondered why he claimed Dave was alleyman also. Perhaps he just was desperate to help a friend PL, perhaps they go wayback from the days of panto! There must be a reason x

 

[Popejohn3]

But didn’t ask a name or the pics to be sent to someone in the pub. When a beloved could do not wrong customer that everyone loved has vanished into thin air you wouldn’t ask a name or get a number. Was it even public knowledge on the Friday (bearing in mind she wasn’t reported missing until 2.07pm) that her bag was even missing... the pub was also crawling with police and press around this time if reports are accurate. I therefore don’t believe that no one else saw him and these bag pics other than Jim and no one else has mentioned the mystery man besides him. So yes I think it’s nonsense.

You could have had plain cloths policemen there too.
So JM and others are involved ?
They would have no right whatsoever to ask the stranger for his name and details and he would be a fool to give it !
I think ... with respect... you are using hindsight.
Up till then CL was just missing.
Just like anyone on WS would be a fool to divulge anything of importance before they tell the police ... I believe the ruck sack happened, the lift happened the couple arguing happened as well as the left handed smoker talking to CL at the bridge .no red herrings just well meaning decent citizens .

 

[UKjester]

the other way, to skin the cat is to look at Poi cars and see if something matches up. it is not a tt. I saw a merc pull out in front of me today and the rear just caught my eye took the reg and looked it up - looked against others. if I play the footage back and just click back and forth, sometimes it seems to show better frames than others - the car in front has a weird reflection on the front almost like it could have a motorcycle parked across its front. the van across the road you draw attention to is just waiting for the bus to pass, it could be linked of course.

Can I ask you to watch the footage again, pay particular attention to the oncoming traffic and the position of the vehicles.Also the van’s headlights.
The cars appear to be manoeuvring around the parked van which pushes them into the centre of the road and then back towards the kerb to avoid the bus.

 

[UKjester]

You could have had plain cloths policemen there too.
So JM and others are involved ?
They would have no right whatsoever to ask the stranger for his name and details and he would be a fool to give it !
I think ... with respect... you are using hindsight.
Up till then CL was just missing.
Just like anyone on WS would be a fool to divulge anything of importance before they tell the police ... I believe the ruck sack happened, the lift happened the couple arguing happened as well as the left handed smoker talking to CL at the bridge .no red herrings just well meaning decent citizens .

As we touched in over the last couple of days, it was confirmed there was no CCTV footage of CL on the 19th. (I would still like clarity on the video shown on the 19th from the post office which was initially suggested to be her.)
This would suggest she wasn’t talking to LHS on the bridge. IMO sightings from anonymous sources should be treated with caution.

 

[Blonderabbit]

As we touched in over the last couple of days, it was confirmed there was no CCTV footage of CL on the 19th. (I would still like clarity on the video shown on the 19th from the post office which was initially suggested to be her.)
This would suggest she wasn’t talking to LHS on the bridge. IMO sightings from anonymous sources should be treated with caution.

The problem with this theory is she walked past many cctv cameras on her way to this point - why no sign of her? It could be her of course however it would mean she either had a lift from the rear of her property or more likely she came from elsewhere in the morning -of course for this to be true you have to get over why no text traffic.

 

[Popejohn3]

As we touched in over the last couple of days, it was confirmed there was no CCTV footage of CL on the 19th. (I would still like clarity on the video shown on the 19th from the post office which was initially suggested to be her.)
This would suggest she wasn’t talking to LHS on the bridge. IMO sightings from anonymous sources should be treated with caution.

Anonymous in the beginning... wasn’t it stated later that it was a post man ?

 

[Blonderabbit]

Can I ask you to watch the footage again, pay particular attention to the oncoming traffic and the position of the vehicles.Also the van’s headlights.
The cars appear to be manoeuvring around the parked van which pushes them into the centre of the road and then back towards the kerb to avoid the bus.

I understand completely I have viewed the footage many times looking at various angles. Imagine it was planned - why three vehicles in full view? Imagine all the people who would be in on it. It’s crazy - this isn’t a huge conspirasory. She’s an average girl in an average job, she isn’t a royal.

 

[Popejohn3]

How about she got into a lhd car soon after leaving her house and no texts in that short time in someone else’s car ( I get car sick as a passenger if I’m reading / texting ) and the arguing could have started straight away .
Did the police check to see if there were any lhd going towards the university ?
Cars going in that direction are further away from the PO camera. Can any sleuths here blow up all cars seen in that short clip .can one tell who is driving male or female, how many passengers if any ?

 

[Popejohn3]

As we touched in over the last couple of days, it was confirmed there was no CCTV footage of CL on the 19th. (I would still like clarity on the video shown on the 19th from the post office which was initially suggested to be her.)
This would suggest she wasn’t talking to LHS on the bridge. IMO sightings from anonymous sources should be treated with caution.

On the contrary with respect, people that give anonymous info are probably closer to the action and again probably know even more but to say more would mean compromising your identity .

 

[UKjester]

Anonymous in the beginning... wasn’t it stated later that it was a post man ?

the bridge sighting was suggested to have been from a postie riding his bike to work. There wasn’t much information provided about this witness.
The argument by the car was an anonymous witness. I understand your point but as it wasn’t a witness to an actual crime I cannot believe it was a genuine sighting. I believe it was more to try and move the focus of the police away from her home. I suspect the rucksack sighting was also intended to distract.

 

[Popejohn3]

the bridge sighting was suggested to have been from a postie riding his bike to work. There wasn’t much information provided about this witness.
The argument by the car was an anonymous witness. I understand your point but as it wasn’t a witness to an actual crime I cannot believe it was a genuine sighting. I believe it was more to try and move the focus of the police away from her home. I suspect the rucksack sighting was also intended to distract.

I’m happy to agree to disagree !

 

[UKjester]

I understand completely I have viewed the footage many times looking at various angles. Imagine it was planned - why three vehicles in full view? Imagine all the people who would be in on it. It’s crazy - this isn’t a huge conspirasory. She’s an average girl in an average job, she isn’t a royal.

I would suspect that the van and other vehicles wouldn’t be known to one another. I see the van as more of a witness rather than a suspect.
We have to assume (for the moment)the NYP did their job properly and that is why the SUV was removed from the investigation.
The other car we are struggling to identify must be key to this? I can’t see why NYP don’t appear to have focussed in on this

 

[UKjester]

I’m happy to agree to disagree !

It would be a pointless forum if we were all sheep and all shared the same opinion.
I don’t see it as disagreeing it’s more challenging opinion

 

[Popejohn3]

Have you all been reading about Ms Sarah Everard missing in London but already being referred to as ‘complex ‘ case
She is 5’4” blond comes from York and disappears on a Wed