UK UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #17

[Whitehall 1212]

As they haven't got very far with whatever strategy they're using, perhaps it's time to revisit Claudia's friends interviews and body language. JK and SC gave numerous interviews although SC hasn't been vocal lately. Claudia had another good friend. The one that was texting on the night before she didn't turn up for work. She had kept a dignified silence. All moo

Unfortunately body language isn't evidence.

Witness statements given will have been looked at with a fine tooth comb.

With time, allegiances change. If this is a conspiracy then there will be a weak link. It could be a loose word, a simple error or a human vulnerability. I am sure that the police are watching very closely.

 

[Blonderabbit]

Unfortunately body language isn't evidence.

Witness statements given will have been looked at with a fine tooth comb.

With time, allegiances change. If this is a conspiracy then there will be a weak link. It could be a loose word, a simple error or a human vulnerability. I am sure that the police are watching very

Unfortunately body language isn't evidence.

Witness statements given will have been looked at with a fine tooth comb.

With time, allegiances change. If this is a conspiracy then there will be a weak link. It could be a loose word, a simple error or a human vulnerability. I am sure that the police are watching very closely.

I know earlier in the thread you used a phrase which basically means it’s normally a simple explanation, you said it’s unlikely to get a group of men down the pub willing to commit a murder or words to that effect. Now I see you are using the word “conspiracy” what’s changed?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I know earlier in the thread you used a phrase which basically means it’s normally a simple explanation, you said it’s unlikely to get a group of men down the pub willing to commit a murder or words to that effect. Now I see you are using the word “conspiracy” what’s changed?

It's highly unlikely that a group of essentially disparate souls will conspire to murder and/or cover up such a serious crime. This is the realm of Serious and Organised Crime.

Murder is rarely planned, unless it is a professional hit. It is invariably a crime of the moment, when someone loses control.

For this reason I would venture that only one is complicit in the murder, so no conspiracy.

Where there could be a second person involved (I can't see a thrird, fourth etc), is in the disposal of the body after the fact.

This would not be a conspiracy to commit murder if there was no pre-knowledge, but it could be an offence such as assisting an offender, preventing an unlawful burial, obstructing a Coroner, perverting the course of justice.....so many possible offences, depending on the precise circumstances.

This would most likely be someone closely related to the killer, as this often promotes loyalty.....however misguided.

 

[Popejohn3]

I know earlier in the thread you used a phrase which basically means it’s normally a simple explanation, you said it’s unlikely to get a group of men down the pub willing to commit a murder or words to that effect. Now I see you are using the word “conspiracy” what’s changed?

He said IF it is a conspiracy.

 

[Popejohn3]

It's highly unlikely that a group of essentially disparate souls will conspire to murder and/or cover up such a serious crime. This is the realm of Serious and Organised Crime.

Murder is rarely planned, unless it is a professional hit. It is invariably a crime of the moment, when someone loses control.

For this reason I would venture that only one is complicit in the murder, so no conspiracy.

Where there could be a second person involved (I can't see a thrird, fourth etc), is in the disposal of the body after the fact. This would be a conspiracy but not of murder. This would most likely be someone closely related to the killer, as this often promotes loyalty.....however misguided.

I say just the one … the one with the red car passenger door open ! Perhaps a lhd !
There keep it simple ! The woman resembled Claudia at the right time right place !
Neither of them came forward ! If it was Claudia then neither of them would / could come forward!

 

[Blonderabbit]

It's highly unlikely that a group of essentially disparate souls will conspire to murder and/or cover up such a serious crime. This is the realm of Serious and Organised Crime.

Murder is rarely planned, unless it is a professional hit. It is invariably a crime of the moment, when someone loses control.

For this reason I would venture that only one is complicit in the murder, so no conspiracy.

Where there could be a second person involved (I can't see a thrird, fourth etc), is in the disposal of the body after the fact.

This could be a conspiracy but not of murder, or assisting an offender, preventing an unlawful burial, obstructing a Coroner, perverting the course of justice.....so many possible offences, depending on the precise circumstances.

This would most likely be someone closely related to the killer, as this often promotes loyalty.....however misguided.

Yes - this is exactly how I see it. I think 1 is in the mix purely by chance/bad timing. 1 is the killer and two have out of loyalty helped him. With disposal. I think Friday 13th something takes place then - Claudia confides in JK that she feels terrible about what she’s said whilst drunk and gives the nags a wide birth - I think it’s likely there were many witnesses to this “happening” including JK - Suzy cooper remarked in an interview that Claudia was very drunk, she didn’t know who she was with. I’m sure the team know very well what it’s all about. I cannot see two brothers being involved without 1 of them being the killer. (Just my opinion)

 

[Popejohn3]

If there were ‘many’ witnesses to this ‘happening’ you can bet your bottom dollar that the police would have been told !

 

[Woodburnbay]

Why? Do you have evidence the suspect/s are from Malton /Acomb?

media said `that Claudia had spent a lot of time in Acomb leading up to her going missing, however that may not be relevant or connected to her demise, perhaps she met a new boyfriend there, however we don't know if the new boyfriend was the culprit or was Claudia's demise because of the new boyfriend? IMO

As they haven't got very far with whatever strategy they're using, perhaps it's time to revisit Claudia's friends interviews and body language. JK and SC gave numerous interviews although SC hasn't been vocal lately. Claudia had another good friend. The one that was texting on the night before she didn't turn up for work. She had kept a dignified silence. All moo

Yes-Liz who worked at Boots in Malton and was a good friend for much longer than the more recently found drinking buddies.
Perhaps her new found friends are feeling built because through them Claudia was introduced to someone who became her fate? IMO.

 

[Woodburnbay]

If there were ‘many’ witnesses to this ‘happening’ you can bet your bottom dollar that the police would have been told !

We know that in society today, the police cannot protect people from those who care little about life.
There could be many who have not come forward. Even the offer of witness protection to many may not be appealing, having to leave friends and family behind and as has been said on here, always watching your back.

I wonder how many of the Nags Head regulars had information, how many still drink there today. Are those regulars fearful of people who have remained in the vicinity to maintain a watch on their "patch".

Can you imagine if the Krays had moved from South East London to North London-What would this left behind do-Run out of control, run to police.

Still not a reason for not coming forward perhaps in an anonymous way?

 

[Pricklykitty]

If there were ‘many’ witnesses to this ‘happening’ you can bet your bottom dollar that the police would have been told !

Unfortunately I think that is a bit of an idealistic view. Look how many times we see police appeals on the news etc where they say the classic phrase- someone somewhere must no something, and we urge them to come forward. I think when people are faced with being the person who names someone who has committed a terrible crime, and have to weigh up the possibility that them, or their loved ones, being the ones to name that person could in turn make them vulnerable to the same sort of fate, its easy and understandable to see why they may not pass that information to police.

 

[Dotta]

Can't somebody pass the info to Police anonymously?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Can't somebody pass the info to Police anonymously?

They can. The only problem is that police need to weed out the false, malicious reports.

Unless someone can provide significant detail that the police can verify elsewhere, then the information may not be a great deal of use.

With anonymous calls the police can't contact the witness to identify their motivation in providing the information and obtain detail they may have omitted.

 

[Dotta]

They can. The only problem is that police need to weed out the false, malicious reports.

Unless someone can provide significant detail that the police can verify elsewhere, then the information may not be a great deal of use.

With anonymous calls the police can't contact the witness to identify their motivation in providing the information and obtain detail they may have omitted.

I have thought that anonymous call is called a "tip" and is always checked by Police.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I have thought that anonymous call is called a "tip" and is always checked by Police.

And here lies the disconnect with what the public are led to believe and the reality of criminal investigation.

Yes, all information from Crime Stoppers is fed back to the police and they do review it and develop it where possible using other sources of intelligence.

However, the public rarely give the additional information that they would be asked if they spoke to a detective and not a non-police officer at Crime Stoppers.

The police are unable to speak to the anonymous witness to confirm their motive for reporting. Many calls are false and malicious.

The police have no means of contacting the witness to confirm or add detail and quite possibly ask for an evidential witness statement to support an arrest and/or charge/prosecution.

The thing is that many in society feel the police need to do all the work. Unfortunately so do many of the police as they mistrust the public.

The police need to rebuild trust desperately and change their attitude towards the public. When the public trust the police and the police actively engage with the public is when crime will be both prevented and solved.

It is a problem of society as a whole and it is societies problem to solve.

I'll get off my soapbox!

 

[Popejohn3]

It does not follow that just because you have not heard of it, it is not so! Can you imagine if detectives worked on this principle?

They can. The only problem is that police need to weed out the false, malicious reports.

Unless someone can provide significant detail that the police can verify elsewhere, then the information may not be a great deal of use.

With anonymous calls the police can't contact the witness to identify their motivation in providing the information and obtain detail they may have omitted.

I have thought that anonymous call is called a "tip" and is always checked by Police.

That is what I’ve always thought !
It sounds like you come under suspicion if you send them a tip !
Heaven Help Us !
It also sounds that one is ignored if one sends an anonymous tip !
I think that is exactly what happened to me ignored !

 

[Popejohn3]

And here lies the disconnect with what the public are led to believe and the reality of criminal investigation.

Yes, all information from Crime Stoppers is fed back to the police and they do review it and develop it where possible using other sources of intelligence.

However, the public rarely give the additional information that they would be asked if they spoke to a detective and not a non-police officer at Crime Stoppers.

The police are unable to speak to the anonymous witness to confirm their motive for reporting. Many calls are false and malicious.

The police have no means of contacting the witness to confirm or add detail and quite possibly ask for an evidential witness statement to support an arrest and/or charge/prosecution.

The thing is that many in society feel the police need to do all the work. Unfortunately so do many of the police as they mistrust the public.

The police need to rebuild trust desperately and change their attitude towards the public. When the public trust the police and the police actively engage with the public is when crime will be both prevented and solved.

It is a problem of society as a whole and it is societies problem to solve.

I'll get off my soapbox!

No don’t get off your soapbox .. this is very interesting indeed
I give it to you that not Many are malicious!
We give the police a ‘tip’ because our conscience is pricking us in spite of the little voice in your head “ you don’t need this .. keep out of it … it could get you into trouble “

 

[Whitehall 1212]

That is what I’ve always thought !
It sounds like you come under suspicion if you send them a tip !
Heaven Help Us !
It also sounds that one is ignored if one sends an anonymous tip !
I think that is exactly what happened to me ignored !

Yes, there may well be suspicion. Everyone has a motive for contacting the police, for most it is altruistic and to be a good citizen, but there are some who have nefarious motives and police are always cautious until they have identified the motive for providing the information.

Anonymous tips aren't ignored but rarely do they provide all the information that a police officer would have asked for.

With an anonymous report to Crime Stoppers there is no means of contacting the informant, which can be very frustrating for the officer investigating, who may have other relevant questions.

Therefore it is always advantageous to report to the police incident room directly.

Obtain the name/warrant number of the officer you passed the information to, ask for a reference for the information, and record the date and time of your call. Ask them what they are going to do with the information. This way they will be suitably 'encouraged' to process it correctly.

 

[Dotta]

Yes, there may well be suspicion. Everyone has a motive for contacting the police, for most it is altruistic and to be a good citizen, but there are some who have nefarious motives and police are always cautious until they have identified the motive for providing the information.

Anonymous tips aren't ignored but rarely do they provide all the information that a police officer would have asked for. With an anonymous report to Crime Stoppers there is no means of contacting the informant, which can be very frustrating for the officer investigating who would have other relevant questions.

Therefore it is always advantageous to report to the police incident room directly. Get the name of the officer you passed the information to, ask for a reference for the information, and record the date and time of your call. Ask them what they are going to do with the information. This way they will be suitably 'encouraged' to process it correctly.

It is a shame b/c such tips can lead to solving a case.

Especially if given by someone within the circle.

I understand perfectly the reluctance to disclose identity.
Such person can be treated as a "snitch" and later suffer revenge.

MOO

 

[Popejohn3]

Yes, there may well be suspicion. Everyone has a motive for contacting the police, for most it is altruistic and to be a good citizen, but there are some who have nefarious motives and police are always cautious until they have identified the motive for providing the information.

Anonymous tips aren't ignored but rarely do they provide all the information that a police officer would have asked for. With an anonymous report to Crime Stoppers there is no means of contacting the informant, which can be very frustrating for the officer investigating who would have other relevant questions.

Therefore it is always advantageous to report to the police incident room directly. Get the name of the officer you passed the information to, ask for a reference for the information, and record the date and time of your call. Ask them what they are going to do with the information. This way they will be suitably 'encouraged' to process it correctly.

Thank you very clear but I still say Heaven Help Us !
I should have listened to my inner voice and not bothered !

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It is a shame b/c such tips can lead to solving a case.

Especially if given by someone within the circle.

I understand perfectly the reluctance to disclose identity.
Such person can be treated as a "snitch" and later suffer revenge.

MOO

Life is full of dilemmas about what to do for the best. Everyone has different views on whether they should inform the police or not.

Ultimately we get the society we deserve. If we are prepared to ignore what we see or suspect then we are part of the problem and not the solution.

Doing the right thing is sometimes the most difficult thing. I know from personal experience when reporting serious concerns of a child at risk from a family member.

Having seen the impact of child abuse as a police officer I had no hesitation in reporting and could never turn a blind eye, despite the personal consequences for me.

Crime affects us, our families and friends, directly and indirectly. We can all choose to either do something or nothing.