UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #19

Status
Not open for further replies.
So what your saying is DNA is nonsense and should never be used?

No, what I'm saying is it has to be a small part of an overall investigation, not the fulcrum on which the entire case hangs or doesn't hang.

But sadly the public are not too savvy where DNA is involved, so "DNA was present" implies an almost automatic conviction, and "DNA was not present" implies an almost certain acquittal.

Clearly it shouldn't be used in this way in either case.
 
No, what I'm saying is it has to be a small part of an overall investigation, not the fulcrum on which the entire case hangs or doesn't hang.

But sadly the public are not too savvy where DNA is involved, so "DNAwas present" implies an almost automatic conviction, and "DAN was not present" implies an almost certain acquittal.

Clearly it shouldn't be used in this way in either case.

Ok got ya, I agree
 
PS - if you work in some form of management at a waste collection company - let's face it - you KNOW if you charge by weight or by collection, since you will be charged by the landfill by weight of what you dump there - <modsnip>

Well that explains why Biffa don't charge by weight then but SP can't be understaffed and dumb because they have discovered the proper weight and put landfill on hold fortuitously early in the investigation thank goodness, but what if he is not in there? We can't trust the weight even now by the looks of it as your info seems to indicate. And what about this magical sorting process that SP and UT convinced us about? <modsnip>
 
My dad used to be a bin man for the local council and the bin lorry got weighed at the dump on the way in and on the way back out again nothing to do with the driver this was in the days before recycling!!

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
Therein lies the solution. Why it took so long to compare the LF records with the drivers records is anyone's guess.
 
So, what's our take now on 4 minute man, the guy seen exiting the horse shoe apparently 4 minutes after Corrie went in? Are we to believe that Corrie had a wee (he'd defo have needed one by then) and got into the bin, and 4 minute man must have come down some stairs or got out of a car, and they managed to miss each other by a few seconds?

Also, does it mean McD's Man and No Entry Person are no longer required?
 
No, what I'm saying is it has to be a small part of an overall investigation, not the fulcrum on which the entire case hangs or doesn't hang.

But sadly the public are not too savvy where DNA is involved, so "DNA was present" implies an almost automatic conviction, and "DNA was not present" implies an almost certain acquittal.

Clearly it shouldn't be used in this way in either case.

AFAIK nothing was found in bins or lorries so DNA is irrelevant here.
 
Not for me. Drunk people do stupid things.

Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk
Agree. And they don't sober up after a 2 hour nap in a doorway. Quite the opposite in my experience. Groggy, feeling ill and needing more time to sleep it off. Nothing surprising about the latest developments regarding Corries actions and the likely shortcuts taken by the waste company and driver.
 
AFAIK nothing was found in bins or lorries so DNA is irrelevant here.

It is relevant because the Police dismissed certain lines of enquiry because of the lack of DNA, when had common sense prevailed instead of pinning everything on DNA - then this point may have been reached months earlier.

That's my point with DNA - the Police pin everything, all lines of enquiry, etc on whether they do or don't find any, but it's not a sensible way to conduct an enquiry.
 
Personally I would be really interested as we were told the weighing machine was checked and callibrated

I think we are doing exactly what BIFFA did, interpret the facts incorrectly. There is no mention of the weight being wrong, calibration being wrong. Clearly from the fact they know the actual weight of the bin, that the calibration/weight recording was correct. Because the weight of the bin was irrelevant to how much the customer was charged, it's recording and what and where it was recorded was obviously not important. From the police statement it appears the correct weight was recorded but most importantly in the wrong place, or the person giving the police the info.read it from the wrong place.
While many are heaping huge criticism on the police, if they ask the straight question, what was the weight ?? and are told X .. and are shown a data sheet with X on .. how are they to know that the what was written in 'X' was actually Y !!
What the police have done excellently is go back to basics, re-examine the facts BUT this time not assuming the facts they were given were correct.
As someone who worked on missile systems, laser guidance systems (for bombs), satellites .. there could never be a case of assumption .. assumption for me could mean a missile going off target .. a satellite failing. WE had systems of checking, systems of checking the checks. A guy writing down the weight of a bin when he knew that the info wasn;t needed .. so what if he wrote it down in the wrong place .. and that i think is what happened here, plain and simple.
 
but surely they must have had a sneaking suspicion otherwise they never would have requested that the waste disposal been held back like it has? very, very odd. I'm not convinced this is as 'innocent' as we are currently being led to believe tbh.
 
So, what's our take now on 4 minute man, the guy seen exiting the horse shoe apparently 4 minutes after Corrie went in? Are we to believe that Corrie had a wee (he'd defo have needed one by then) and got into the bin, and 4 minute man must have come down some stairs or got out of a car, and they managed to miss each other by a few seconds?

Also, does it mean McD's Man and No Entry Person are no longer required?
Are you joking? Doesn't it mean all 39 are irrelevant now? The forensics on the bin and lorry are suspect now though if the weight was wrong. I'm beginning to think this case is almost deliberately being led up the garden path. If nothing is found in landfill, what then?
 
I think their thought process was quite simple ..
We can find no evidence of him leaving on foot ...
We have evidence of his phone moving at vehicular speed ...
A bin lorry left the HS and headed in the direction of the Landfill as did his phone ..
So just in case C and/or the phone were in the bin .. let's preserve a possible crime scene ..

but surely they must have had a sneaking suspicion otherwise they never would have requested that the waste disposal been held back like it has? very, very odd. I'm not convinced this is as 'innocent' as we are currently being led to believe tbh.
 
It is relevant because the Police dismissed certain lines of enquiry because of the lack of DNA, when had common sense prevailed instead of pinning everything on DNA - then this point may have been reached months earlier.

That's my point with DNA - the Police pin everything, all lines of enquiry, etc on whether they do or don't find any, but it's not a sensible way to conduct an enquiry.

No Dave, it wasn't lack of DNA, it was lack of anything at all. No blood, hair, fibres, finger prints etc. No trace of C at all. Put that with the dodgy weight and there is still doubt he was in that bin IMO.
 
yes now the forensic thing is confusing, need to revisit it. Just need to confirm all bins were forensically searched? I'm sure they were weren't they, but the landfill bins weren't searched until much later? Tbf, I'm not sure how long Dna would have lasted? are those bins cleaned regularly? I'm just staggered how this got past them. weren't the bins forensically searched in order to rule out this possibility? I thought that was the whole point?
 
I think we are doing exactly what BIFFA did, interpret the facts incorrectly. There is no mention of the weight being wrong, calibration being wrong. Clearly from the fact they know the actual weight of the bin, that the calibration/weight recording was correct. Because the weight of the bin was irrelevant to how much the customer was charged, it's recording and what and where it was recorded was obviously not important. From the police statement it appears the correct weight was recorded but most importantly in the wrong place, or the person giving the police the info.read it from the wrong place.
While many are heaping huge criticism on the police, if they ask the straight question, what was the weight ?? and are told X .. and are shown a data sheet with X on .. how are they to know that the what was written in 'X' was actually Y !!
What the police have done excellently is go back to basics, re-examine the facts BUT this time not assuming the facts they were given were correct.
As someone who worked on missile systems, laser guidance systems (for bombs), satellites .. there could never be a case of assumption .. assumption for me could mean a missile going off target .. a satellite failing. WE had systems of checking, systems of checking the checks. A guy writing down the weight of a bin when he knew that the info wasn;t needed .. so what if he wrote it down in the wrong place .. and that i think is what happened here, plain and simple.

Thanks for the response I do have to slightly disagree there is a difference between 11kg and over 100kg so something was wrong somewher. I don't think anyone said the calibration of the weighing machine was wrong in fact we were told the machine had been checked and found to be in good working order. Don,t forget we are only going on what we were told as fact as did the police and family perhaps if we were told 100kg in the first instance we would have probably all assumed he was in the bin and not followed the case. :cheers:
 
No Dave, it wasn't lack of DNA, it was lack of anything at all. No blood, hair, fibres, finger prints etc. No trace of C at all. Put that with the dodgy weight and there is still doubt he was in that bin IMO.


Right - whatever.

All of the obvious pointing from the beginning that he was in the bin truck, the weight now being confirmed as heavy enough to account for him.... if you believe that.

But you know better because of no DNA - allegedly - if they checked the right truck, or even bothered to check in the back of it, or the cab, or etc.

The slipshod way the Police have handled this - who now ironically seem to be patting themselves on the back for realising the weights were wrong 6 months later - I wouldn't believe anything they claim they did or didn't find at all.

I said right at the beginning the weights were wrong, he was in the truck, etc. The Police now seem to have caught up a bit, but I still think there's a lot more to this than an accident, maybe one day they'll sort it out.

I STILL think he was in the cab, not the back, but unless the <modsnip> actually get a phone of the same make as CMs, on the same network, put it in the same truck and drive it about - we'll never know if the solid metal back of that truck acts as a Faraday shield or not.

And that is the difference between it being an accident or a murder. Will they even think about doing it?

Don't hold your breath.

In fact they might well have the phone or some other item/s in lost property but never put 2 and 2 together.
 
So, what's our take now on 4 minute man, the guy seen exiting the horse shoe apparently 4 minutes after Corrie went in? Are we to believe that Corrie had a wee (he'd defo have needed one by then) and got into the bin, and 4 minute man must have come down some stairs or got out of a car, and they managed to miss each other by a few seconds?

Also, does it mean McD's Man and No Entry Person are no longer required?

I realy don't know what to make of it, is 4 min man and legs man the same person I'm not sure, sp must have a good idea as they would have the CCTV of ware they came from and ware they went afterwards,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
2,097
Total visitors
2,176

Forum statistics

Threads
590,013
Messages
17,928,991
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top