UK UK - Claudia Lawrence, 35, Chef, York University, 18 March 2009 #19

[JimmyDurham]

Do you have the clip of Oxer on tv ?

Na, but it will be on YouTube somewhere.

From memory: laughing about carrots and sexual innuendos, he sometimes picked her up on her way to work, that particular day he decided to take a different route that meant he didn't pass Claudia's walk to work, he said he had a "monkey on his back for a few days after" (Claudia went missing).

 

[Stella123]

On doing some searching, it seems strange that nothing about David Oxer in MSM comes up with various google searches. I'm aware he said something to the police apparently a year after he was first interviewed but can't find any MSM about it. Was it on TV or something?

 

[Professor Moriarty]

It was on TV.

Monday 1st December 2019

Channel 5 documentary entitled The Disappearance Of Claudia Lawrence-Missing or Murdered?

 

[Stella123]

Thank you. Do you know which episode please? So is that how the police found out what he said, a year later? From a TV interview, not a police interview? If so that doesn't make him sound very credible if he had different narratives.

 

[JimmyDurham]

So is that how the police found out what he said, a year later?

It's worth pointing out that the "year later" part is disputed.

I don't think it's actually known when Oxer disclosed the information. We do know that the police did not disclose it until a year after Claudia's disappearance, but it doesn't automatically follow that Oxer did not disclose until a year later.

I don't think it matters whether it was around the time or a year later.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

It was on TV.

Monday 1st December 2019

Channel 5 documentary entitled The Disappearance Of Claudia Lawrence-Missing or Murdered?

Sorry. Isn't there only one

Thank you. Do you know which episode please? So is that how the police found out what he said, a year later? From a TV interview, not a police interview? If so that doesn't make him sound very credible if he had different narratives.

Isn't there only one episode?

No access outside UK

 

[Popejohn3]

Checkout Joey and Josh podcast March 2025

 

[Stella123]

Sorry. Isn't there only one

Isn't there only one episode?

No access outside UK

When I looked it seeemed there was more than one episode.

 

[Novosti]

The fabled four are still here nigh on 20 years later and not a shred of evidence against them has been found in that time. That's a long time.

What does that tell you, John?

Barking up the wrong tree.

All of these cases invariably lead to one thing: a lone lunatic murders lone woman. Possibly known to Claudia and possibly not.

Not necessarily. These situations can just be the natural consequence of the justice system. The requirement to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt means that cases will arise where the police have strong leading suspect(s) but insufficient evidence for a conviction. As a result the investigation stalls until the evidence picture changes significantly. The Jill Dando case is another case in point - Barry George was acquitted by the courts but the police are not seriously investigating alternative suspects.

A CPS decision not to prosecute, or a court decision to acquit, should never be interpreted as a sound basis for the police to start from scratch and devote investigative resources to alternative suspects.

 

[Alpha Zero]

Not necessarily. These situations can just be the natural consequence of the justice system. The requirement to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt means that cases will arise where the police have strong leading suspect(s) but insufficient evidence for a conviction. As a result the investigation stalls until the evidence picture changes significantly. The Jill Dando case is another case in point - Barry George was acquitted by the courts but the police are not seriously investigating alternative suspects.

A CPS decision not to prosecute, or a court decision to acquit, should never be interpreted as a sound basis for the police to start from scratch and devote investigative resources to alternative suspects.

That poster is clearly trying to steer the narrative another way, no matter what is stated they always say it’s a “lone lunatic” , he just hasn’t got the message that no one is buying the misdirection and clear nonsense

 

[Professor Moriarty]

That poster is clearly trying to steer the narrative another way, no matter what is stated they always say it’s a “lone lunatic” , he just hasn’t got the message that no one is buying the misdirection and clear nonsense

I agree. It is by no means certain that the event even took place in the morning that Claudia failed to arrive at work. "Lone lunatics" tend to be tucked up in bed at the time that Claudia would have been walking to work (if the event did happen that morning). For a lone lunatic to have abducted Claudia on the way to work, he would have needed not just to have been roaming the streets at that time, but to have been in a vehicle. Claudia was a young woman and not small. Abducting Claudia on her route to work and holding her in a vehicle would have been difficult. If it was a "lone lunatic" with a vehicle, he also did a very good job of evading detection and disposing of Claudia's body.

Although the poster frequently refers to statistics, without quoting them, ex Detective Inspector Clive Driscoll said (in the Donal MacIntyre programme about Claudia) that such abductions are rare, especially so early in the morning.

The fact that none of the four have been prosecuted does not mean that there is "not a shred of evidence" against them or that the CPS "laughed the case out of court". It simply means that the case was not strong enough.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I agree. It is by no means certain that the event even took place in the morning that Claudia failed to arrive at work. "Lone lunatics" tend to be tucked up in bed at the time that Claudia would have been walking to work (if the event did happen that morning). For a lone lunatic to have abducted Claudia on the way to work, he would have needed not just to have been roaming the streets at that time, but to have been in a vehicle. Claudia was a young woman and not small. Abducting Claudia on her route to work and holding her in a vehicle would have been difficult. If it was a "lone lunatic" with a vehicle, he also did a very good job of evading detection and disposing of Claudia's body.

Although the poster frequently refers to statistics, without quoting them, ex Detective Inspector Clive Driscoll said (in the Donal MacIntyre programme about Claudia) that such abductions are rare, especially so early in the morning.

The fact that none of the four have been prosecuted does not mean that there is "not a shred of evidence" against them or that the CPS "laughed the case out of court". It simply means that the case was not strong enough.

Sorry. Clive Driscoll was a Detective Chief Inspector.

 

[Novosti]

I agree. It is by no means certain that the event even took place in the morning that Claudia failed to arrive at work. "Lone lunatics" tend to be tucked up in bed at the time that Claudia would have been walking to work (if the event did happen that morning). For a lone lunatic to have abducted Claudia on the way to work, he would have needed not just to have been roaming the streets at that time, but to have been in a vehicle. Claudia was a young woman and not small. Abducting Claudia on her route to work and holding her in a vehicle would have been difficult. If it was a "lone lunatic" with a vehicle, he also did a very good job of evading detection and disposing of Claudia's body.

Although the poster frequently refers to statistics, without quoting them, ex Detective Inspector Clive Driscoll said (in the Donal MacIntyre programme about Claudia) that such abductions are rare, especially so early in the morning.

The fact that none of the four have been prosecuted does not mean that there is "not a shred of evidence" against them or that the CPS "laughed the case out of court". It simply means that the case was not strong enough.

These are important points. Clean swift abductions on a public road, and effective disposals of bodies do happen. But they are usually the work of groups of people with tight and effective organisation, access to resources, and reasonably high intelligence (so up to and including OCGs and paramilitaries). A lone individual, possibly with mental health challenges, is a really unusual candidate to succeed at these tasks.

 

[Novosti]

These are important points. Clean swift abductions on a public road, and effective disposals of bodies do happen. But they are usually the work of groups of people with tight and effective organisation, access to resources, and reasonably high intelligence (so up to and including OCGs and paramilitaries). A lone individual, possibly with mental health challenges, is a really unusual candidate to succeed at these tasks.

Just a little note on top of this. Many of the paramilitaries and OCGs that have been most successful at this used a network of members and supporters connected to the construction and farming industries (the most obvious example being the IRA in border communities). There are also cases where small groups of highly intelligent people from these industries have conducted murders and body disposals competently without an obvious prior criminal background - the Arlene Fraser case being one example.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Just a little note on top of this. Many of the paramilitaries and OCGs that have been most successful at this used a network of members and supporters connected to the construction and farming industries (the most obvious example being the IRA in border communities). There are also cases where small groups of highly intelligent people from these industries have conducted murders and body disposals competently without an obvious prior criminal background - the Arlene Fraser case being one example.

A van is helpful. You can drive around with someone in the back and no one can see. For a "lone" lunatic to have pulled this sort of thing off with Claudia he would probably have needed to kill her before getting her into the back of the van. Although it was early in the morning, there were people around, people going to work and coming home from work. And, what would be the point?

 

[Popejohn3]

https://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/news/north-yorkshire/news/news/2026/03-march/17-years-since-claudias-disappearance/#:~:text=Claudia%20was%20last%20seen%20and,what%20happened%20has%20not%20diminished.

 

[Mrs Marple]

Thinking of Claudia's family today.

 

[Mrs Marple]

There are two theories at play.

A significant amount of planning went into killing her.

Or it was a random attack.

If the former..she must have really annoyed someone. We are led to believe she had numerous affairs with married men. These are secretive. That made her vulnerable. It is possible she made a joke about telling someone's wife or spilling some other important information, and she was murdered to silence her.

I find it unlikely she was killed by a random. It was early in the morning. They stayed in the area- we know this because of her phone being switched off - this is risky. They are normally away to a secluded spot to carry out their plan.

The being taken out the back of her house makes sense if we consider the phone evidence, being kept local. The early morning cctv. The link to the pub.

Was there a new boyfriend? Was he a threat to the old guard in some way? What could Claudia have known? It's unlikely to be anything significant, none of her relationships appear to have lasted. It's more likely she stumbled upon something she shouldn't have or she threatened to disclose something and was naive about the danger she was in. Or did she start seeing someone who was a business rival to someone she had seen before?

 

[Popejohn3]

There are two theories at play.

A significant amount of planning went into killing her.

Or it was a random attack.

If the former..she must have really annoyed someone. We are led to believe she had numerous affairs with married men. These are secretive. That made her vulnerable. It is possible she made a joke about telling someone's wife or spilling some other important information, and she was murdered to silence her.

I find it unlikely she was killed by a random. It was early in the morning. They stayed in the area- we know this because of her phone being switched off - this is risky. They are normally away to a secluded spot to carry out their plan.

The being taken out the back of her house makes sense if we consider the phone evidence, being kept local. The early morning cctv. The link to the pub.

Was there a new boyfriend? Was he a threat to the old guard in some way? What could Claudia have known? It's unlikely to be anything significant, none of her relationships appear to have lasted. It's more likely she stumbled upon something she shouldn't have or she threatened to disclose something and was naive about the danger she was in. Or did she start seeing someone who was a business rival to someone she had seen before?

I go along with a new boyfriend

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I go along with a new boyfriend

Do you mean the new boyfriend killed her? If so, why?

If you mean the new boyfriend triggered an old boyfriend to kill her, wouldn't the new boyfriend have forward to the police? Maybe he wouldn't if he was married. Or, perhaps he did come forward.