Jump to content

Talk:Disappearance of Claudia Lawrence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Disappearance of Claudia Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blonde?

[edit]

Quote Police authorities admitted there were similarities with the cases of Melanie Hall and Joanna Yeates, two other young, blonde British women who disappeared

At the time of her disappearance Claudia had dark brown hair... Just saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.152.114 (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double life

[edit]
This Talk page is for possible improvements to the article and not for making unsourced/unreferenced accusations against someone who cannot answer back. Please stop this now. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail reference

[edit]

I realise that the Daily Mail is not normally acceptable as a reference source. It has been well known a source of fake news since the time of the Zinoviev letter in 1924. The Mail is distinguished by its use of forged communications as information sources. However, the relevant WP guideline indicates that such a source may be acceptable when it itself is the subject of the discussion. We are talking here about lurid speculation in the tabloid press and the relevant Daily Mail article is given as an example of that. So, I consider that the Mail is a fair source. I will reinsert the reference but will hear anything that anyone has to say, Keith. Izzy (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"was" or "is" a chef

[edit]

Hi,User:Sitush. I do not agree with the statement you have inserted to the effect that Claudia "is" a chef at York University. She may or may not be dead but she hasn't reported for duty at the University for well over 10 years and must have been removed from the payroll soon thereafter. She may or may not be dead but she certainly is no longer employed as a chef. Any thoughts?. Izzy (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I realise that may sound confusing but you are engaging in original research. There are better ways to deal with it. Much of this article is extremely poorly phrased and I am struggling to fix it all via mobile. - Sitush (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Fulcher theory

[edit]

Wasn't Stephen Fulcher forced to resign/take early retirement due to his mistakes made in the Halliwell case? And if so, should we really be relying on him as a source for a theory etc here that links Halliwell to Lawrence? - Sitush (talk) Sitush (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: exactly, and Wiltshire Police have said that they have CCTV evidence of Halliwell being miles away in Swindon on the night Lawrence was last seen. And Halliwell had no connections whatsoever to York, just to Huddersfield no where near York and only because his father lived there. And his father had died years before Lawrence disappeared BarehamOliver (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nag's Head or Nags Head?

[edit]

Hi A bit iffy . I think the name of the pub has changed over time. In 2009 it was known as The Nag's Head but after a subsequent refurbishment it changed its name to The Nags Head. See https://www.chillingcrimes.com/blogs/news/claudia-lawrence . I am not sure that the note you have inserted in the article concerning this is helpful so I will remove it if that is OK with you. best wishes . Izzy (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ps : See image which appears to have been created around 2010

The date on that photograph is wrong - it can be dated to 2020 or later as that table arrangement and fencing were put out during the pandemic. Compare it with an image dated April 2011 and one that I took in June this year. See commons: Category:The Nag's Head, Heworth Road, York.
The Nag’s Head, April 2011
The Nag's Head, June 2021
For what it’s worth, it’s always been the Nag's Head, e.g. see paragraph 188 in An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in City of York, Volume 4, Outside the City Walls East of the Ouse (London, 1975), pp. 76-80. British History Online [accessed 4 September 2021]. Any rendering of the name as the 'Nags Head' was a matter of styling, which doesn’t amount to a name change. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Re the note, I don’t think people are going to confuse the Nag's Head in Heworth Road with the Nags Head in Micklegate, 1.6 miles away in the city centre on the other side of the river. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malcolmxl5 . Very useful images. Suggesting that the name changed from The Nags Head to The Nag's Head - and not vice versa. There is no substitute for local knowledge in such matters. I think we have all agreed that the Note serves no purpose and I will remove it next time I update the article. Izzy (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halliwell

[edit]

Hi User:BarehamOliver. You cite a reported police claim that Halliwell bought petrol in Swindon on the night of 18/19 March and comment that this "... would appear to rule him out of the murder". Two thoughts. (1) Swindon is about a 3.5 hour drive from York. Was this petrol purchased after 2am?. If it was purchased before 2am then Halliwell could have been in York by 5:30am in time to abduct Claudia. (2) What proof do the police have that Halliwell made this purchase?. If it is a bank card transaction then that merely means that H's card was used, not that H personally used it. My general point being that the police claim does not rule Halliwell out of being the murderer.

Any thoughts?. Izzy (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guys. I have left this for over 2 days and nobody has commented. The police line on Halliwell's possible involvement is that they have no direct evidence of such involvement but nor have they claimed to have evidence that he was not involved. If there is proof that Halliwell was not involved (eg CCTV footage showing him in Swindon at 3am on 19 March 2009) then I am certain that would have been released to the public domain by now. I have therefore tweaked the article accordingly. Izzy (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Isabela84:, apologies for not replying sooner. The evidence police have is not bank card transactions, but rather CCTV footage of him filling his car with petrol in Swindon at a petrol station on the evening of 18th of March.[1] I must say I don't think it right to cite this evidence in the text as a "claim", as this to me implies that this information is unverifiable or unconfirmed, when actually Stephen Fulcher (the lead detective on the Halliwell case back in 2011 and the one who originally linked Lawrence to him in his book in 2017) has himself confirmed that he has been shown this evidence, and has confirmed its authenticity and existence.[1] The evidence was also shared with North Yorkshire Police.[1] The evidence does not formally rule Halliwell out of being in York the next morning, however, the tone of the ITV News article clearly indicates that Wiltshire Police consider the evidence to at least significantly diminish any weight to the theory of Halliwell being able to get to York in time to commit the murder. Therefore, I would consider it original research to state it the text that "this does not rule him out of the murder", based on google map data on how long it takes to get from Swindon to York and without any reference to a reliable source explicitly saying that this evidence does not rule him out of the murder. If you see what I mean? Ideally we should just stick to what to sources explicitly say, and none actually say this evidence does not rule him out of the murder.
As a result, I feel better wording for the line in question would be "Both NYP and Wiltshire Police have stated that there is no direct evidence linking Halliwell to the Lawrence case, and Wiltshire Police has disclosed that they have CCTV evidence of Halliwell buying petrol at a petrol station in Swindon on the evening prior to Lawrence's disappearance." BarehamOliver (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, User:BarehamOliver. Halliwell being videod in Swindon on the evening of 18/03 don't seems significant to me. I suggest removal from the article of reference thereto. The guy was a professional driver, well travelled in the UK, and had owned around 200 cars not all registered in his name. He was perfectly capable of being in York at 5:30am on 19/03. The police have favoured the theory that Claudia was abducted by someone known to her. The underlying police mindset seems to be that Claudia's immoral lifestyle caused her demise. Personally, I think that Claudia's lifestyle (immoral or not) is a red herring. Could Halliwell have done it?. At first encounter that proposition is highly improbable. I mean, what would a Swindon taxi driver have been doing in York at 5:30am on a random weekday?. However, as Sherlock Holmes said : 'Consider all possibilities and eliminate those that are impossible. What you are left with, however improbable, is the truth' Izzy (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabela84: you can't just remove content from an article because it doesn't fit in with your own speculative theory on who committed the murder, it doesn't work like that. With respect, it is much more relevant what Wiltshire Police think about the significance of the CCTV evidence than what you think. It's not relevant relevant that you think the fact that the footage isn't important, as if Wikipedia is a place for whodunnit discussions. This is a neutral encyclopaedia and we only are here to inform, so we just go on what reliable sources say, and so we report in the article that Wiltshire Police have cited this evidence when responding to any speculation around the case being linked to Halliwell.
What is important for you to realise is that Wikipedia is not a place to Wikipedia:Right great wrongs. We are not here to intentionally promote theories or campaign for the prosecution of Halliwell. You are entitled to have theories on this case, but Wikipedia doesn't leads, it follows. We don't publish our own personal theories on here or spin any content in order for it to support your theory. So this idea you have that we should be acting as Sherlock Holmes on here and speculating on who did the murder is not appropriate.
Furthermore, we are not only an encyclopaedia but a neutral one. Therefore, it is fine to report that there has been speculation linking Halliwell to the case, as long as we also report that Wiltshire Police have rejected the claim and responded to the speculation with reference to the CCTV evidence. Whether you agree with Wiltshire Police on that or not is not at all relevant, and it is not at all appropriate to remove the information based on the fact that you disagree with their claim. So no, I cannot, and will not, agree with the removal of the content. BarehamOliver (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Clark, Chris; Trueman, Bethan (2021). The New Millennium Serial Killer. King's Lynn, Norfolk: Biddles Books. p. 71. ISBN 978-1-838486-10-5.

Razzell

[edit]

Hi once again, User:BarehamOliver. Glynn Razzell has now spent 20 years in gaol for the murder of Linda. However, the case against him was widely considered to be thin. His conviction has been investigated several times as a possible miscarriage of justice. I am inclined to the view that Glynn is innocent. What clinches it for me is that he stays in gaol while he maintains his innocence. If he were to admit the murder, express remorse, and promise not to do it again - then he would likely be free on parole by now. Family views on Glynn's innocence or guilt don't seem significant to me and I suggest removal from the article of reference thereto. See : Swindon Advertiser 12/21 article Izzy (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabela84: I have covered some of this in my answer in the section above, however again I must emphasise that your view on whether he is innocent or not is irrelevant. That is not relevant for building a neutral encyclopaedia and it worries me immediately that you cite your opinions in this case as justification for deletion of content that doesn't fit in with the Halliwell theory. Putting aside the fact that you think your view on Razzell's guilt is more relevant than the view of Linda's own family, it is not at all acceptable to say we should not include information that would diminish any weight to the Halliwell theory based on the fact that you assume he is innocent. You must understand that we must give both sides of the story. For the article to cite speculation that Halliwell may have committed Linda's murder yet not mention the fact that there is already a man serving a sentence for the murder is not at all informative to readers, as readers would assume that it is an unsolved murder that he is being linked to.
On a separate topic, I think you need to look a bit deeper into the Razzell case if you assume that his conviction is generally thought to be unsafe. I fully understand your interest in Halliwell and you obviously have a real passion for true crime which I share myself. However, are you aware that one of Britain's most notable miscarriages of justice organisations, Inside Justice, investigated Glyn Razzell's conviction as part of a documentary [1], and actually concluded that his conviction WAS safe? Perhaps have a watch if you are interested in the Razzell case: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6tne6s. Over the years Halliwell has been repeatedly linked with a number of unsolved murders across Britain, but in several cases these links have subsequently been disproven. For instance, he was wrongly linked [2] to the May 2002 murder of Rachel Wilson in Teeside, for which a man was later convicted of in 2021: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-59116999. Another recent example is the case of Caroline Glachan's 1996 murder; linked [3] to Halliwell before but for which three people were finally charged with in 2021 [4]. The case of Melanie Hall was also linked by Fulcher to Halliwell but police have explicitly ruled him out and they have DNA in the case that isn't his. The point I'm trying to make is that you need to be careful when you hear about these speculative links with Halliwell and other cases. It doesn't just mean that just because Chris Clark or Stephen Fulcher say Halliwell killed someone, that it is 100% true. In order to be a true Sherlock Holmes style detective, you need to consider both sides of the story and consider all of the information possible to properly weigh up the evidence and form conclusions. BarehamOliver (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disappearance_of_Claudia_Lawrence&oldid=1228593728"