This is so interesting to me - I’d never heard anything negative about Claudia’s father before and of course, he was so vocal and committed about finding his daughter.
I had read that he drank with her at the pub. The impression I got was that he would stay for a couple but perhaps not - perhaps he was very much involved in the scene. He was red-faced which can sometimes indicate a heavy drinker.
He was separated from Claudia’s mother, although I don’t know when they broke up or why.
The information about money troubles is new to me. I assumed there was a little money in the family as Claudia was a homeowner (working as a university chef and living on her own, you could assume her family helped her to get on the property ladder) and also her house hasn’t been sold, nor rented out as far as I can ascertain, which you’d expect to happen if they weren’t financially secure.
Sorry - I’m barely adding to the conversation with this post but I’m fascinated by this twist.
I listened to it last night. It was interesting but it didn't reveal that much new stuff really.
I didn't feel the presenter was suggesting that her dad had anything to do with it, more that he was covering the fact that some people didn't like him which hasn't really been widely known. He basically said he wasn't necessarily the Saint some people made him out to be but people are multidimensional. He wanted to show both sides but I feel he developed a loyalty to Joan throughout recording.
He did make a bit of a thing about Jen King's reaction to a straightforward question about Claudia's dad, where she jumped to his defence. However, given she would be aware of criticism of him over the years, I didn't find that particularly telling either.
There was however, clearly a deep rift between him and Joan, it must be something serious, despite Joan understandably wishing not to comment on it further. That makes me wonder about a possible 'dark side'.
It says that he sometimes helped Claudia out financially. They probably wouldn't have been able to sell or rent her house because her assets were likely frozen until she was able to be declared deceased (I think it's 7 years).That's why he campaigned for a change in the law, to make managing finances simpler for families with missing relatives to deal with. Who knows, maybe some of those issues led to his debt. Maybe he had problems before.
Martin and the CCTV camera thing is odd, he must have had a hand in installing them, to have control over them. He wouldn't have been able to access Council cameras due to data protection.
The info in the last episode was the most interesting, although I think it might be a bit irresponsible to have publicised it. Even with the name changes that lady's ex will know who she is.
The change in height of the wall is an important factor. If they used the wrong wall height as a reference measurement in the computer software when ascertaining the suspects height from the CCTV, it will not have calculated an accurate height of the person! I'd also be very interested to know to what extent up to date specialist software could improve the image quality compared to whenever it was last done.
Also, I'll keep my opinions to myself regarding the criminologist who is interviewed for the podcast (I'm deliberately not naming him) but he did make a good point that forensic opportunity was lost in terms of the delay in searching her house given there were other people with a key.
www.dailymail.co.uk
