UK UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #11

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Popejohn3 said:
The trouble with these reports we don’t know much about the witness I mean was the witness a neighbour? Passing by on foot ? In a car ?
How long did they observe him there ?
And being a terraced house and a small front garden it’s easy a mistake to make assuming that his interest was on no 46
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct. If you imagine all of the pieces of information that you’ve read laid out like pieces of puzzles - some are from the Claudia lawrance puzzle, some are from other puzzles that run through the lives of other people woven into Claudias life but in no way connected to her disappearance and then there’s pieces thrown in by people with sinister reasons for good measure. You work it out!
 
Blonderabbit said:
Absolutely correct. If you imagine all of the pieces of information that you’ve read laid out like pieces of puzzles - some are from the Claudia lawrance puzzle, some are from other puzzles that run through the lives of other people woven into Claudias life but in no way connected to her disappearance and then there’s pieces thrown in by people with sinister reasons for good measure. You work it out!
Click to expand...
I wish I had your way with words agree .
Not sure there are that many ‘sinister pieces ‘ though !
 
It’s 12.16am and I’m thinking.
1. Why didn’t Peter lawrance go alone to Claudias house when he knew she hadn’t been to work or in contact with anyone Suzy etc - why wait for Suzy and George?

2. she was an avid texter - no one communicated with her for 36 hours apart from Suzy and work??
Was this normal?

3. she never arrived at work two days in the trot with no call, no response - she was reliable - she was popular why didn’t anyone think it was odd ?
3.she had a large circle of friends yet for 36hours she wasn’t missed - apart from Suzy.
4.where did George travel from? To get to claudias?
 
No 1
He was expecting the worst. And as an ex prosecution lawyer he knew that police always suspect the person that finds the victim if there was a victim . And two people are better than one.
He did the right thing IMO
2 others must have texted her but with usual small talk because only work and Suzy thought there was something wrong .Remember she was an avid texter and lived alone and probably initiated most texting sessions.
3 they missed her Thursday at work and phoned her
The following day they would have had cover ... she was on holiday.
George was on business the other side of town
 
I worked on a case a number of years ago, a lorry driver (he had a fleet of the tractor units that pull the containers - all owned outright. He was caught coming in with a curtain sided trailer with a tonne sack of drugs (not class a) there was a mobile phone on the drugs in the back. His defence was he knew nothing of it and at some point it must of been put in there on his journey the ship or another stop. It would of taken 15 men to lift it. It was obvious when you put everything together he was guilty but there was only circumstantial evidence - the jury found him not guilty and he walked free.
I think this is a similar situation - there’s evidence but if a question is asked were you in her house on the 18th March and they say no, then with finger prints etc it’s easy to prove lies, however if the answer is no comment then there’s no denial and no admission. Then it’s down to the police to prove . The killer I’m sure is right in front of us - they have been talked about many times - but even the police can’t prove it.
 
Popejohn3 said:
No comment can harm your defence .
Click to expand...
Not when by saying it you’ve nothing to defend. It’s a vicious circle spent last night thinking about other ways of looking at it.
So imagine if the police know who alleyway man is for sure, imagine they can see him beyond our view on another camera, they can see him walk down the alley behind Claudias house . We only get to see part of their shot because they need a third party to identify him. The left handed smoker doesn’t exist, the sightings were unsubstantiated. Kind of changes how you look at it. You’d question whilst the rucksack is missing - did she ever leave 46 Heworth road alive ?
There’s a few curious indicators - no ones heard from Claudia so fear the worst - is this normal ?
One of the most curious moments is watching George Forman explaining how she was a vegetarian that loved animals and had a horse!! Really - he was looking like he was under immense pressure - why? One of the rugilts had disappeared nothing more? The four - apart from Robinson not a squeak - nothing, are they laying low or were they never involved? Are the nags four actually a different four or is it a three, maybe a six? I’m not believing in the new boyfriend - the unknown man - the police didn’t submit a case against the unknown boyfriend to the cps.
 
When you say ‘watching GF’ did you witness this? Was it on video or read about it ?
 
Blonderabbit said:
Not when by saying it you’ve nothing to defend. It’s a vicious circle spent last night thinking about other ways of looking at it.
So imagine if the police know who alleyway man is for sure, imagine they can see him beyond our view on another camera, they can see him walk down the alley behind Claudias house . We only get to see part of their shot because they need a third party to identify him. The left handed smoker doesn’t exist, the sightings were unsubstantiated. Kind of changes how you look at it. You’d question whilst the rucksack is missing - did she ever leave 46 Heworth road alive ?
There’s a few curious indicators - no ones heard from Claudia so fear the worst - is this normal ?
One of the most curious moments is watching George Forman explaining how she was a vegetarian that loved animals and had a horse!! Really - he was looking like he was under immense pressure - why? One of the rugilts had disappeared nothing more? The four - apart from Robinson not a squeak - nothing, are they laying low or were they never involved? Are the nags four actually a different four or is it a three, maybe a six? I’m not believing in the new boyfriend - the unknown man - the police didn’t submit a case against the unknown boyfriend to the cps.
Click to expand...
May I ask with respect how can the police submit a case against an ‘unknown person ‘ ?
 
Blonderabbit said:
I think this is a similar situation - there’s evidence but if a question is asked were you in her house on the 18th March and they say no, then with finger prints etc it’s easy to prove lies, however if the answer is no comment then there’s no denial and no admission. Then it’s down to the police to prove . The killer I’m sure is right in front of us - they have been talked about many times - but even the police can’t prove it.
Click to expand...
Not easy if the person/s admit to having visited the home before as a 'friend' so their prints can be explained away.
 
Popejohn3 said:
No 1
He was expecting the worst. And as an ex prosecution lawyer he knew that police always suspect the person that finds the victim if there was a victim . And two people are better than one.
He did the right thing IMO
2 others must have texted her but with usual small talk because only work and Suzy thought there was something wrong .Remember she was an avid texter and lived alone and probably initiated most texting sessions.
3 they missed her Thursday at work and phoned her
The following day they would have had cover ... she was on holiday.
George was on business the other side of town
Click to expand...
bbm
He was away from Heworth and came back for the reason, to open Claudia's home in the presence of her father?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 169 more.
Total: 4,572 (members: 170, guests: 4,402)

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
4,402
Total visitors
4,572
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,610
Messages
17,971,675
Members
228,843
Latest member
Lilhuda
Back
Top