UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #16

[Northern Light]

How have I missed this, did I skip a thread or something?! Just checked it out on findcorrie, thanks for reposting, I'd have been oblivious!!

Three left to be identified. The other photos were removed as each person was positively identified.

 

[MidsummersDay]

Jeez, you couldn't make this up if you tried....
Now it's 26 minutes (not 28 minutes) and 5kms (not 3kms). Standby to be bored senseless with another image.
Death by PowerPoint to follow. :/
http://www.itv.com/thismorning/hot-topics/help-me-find-my-missing-son-findcorrie#

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Shiressleuth]

What?????? I am so baffled.

You are always on this thread and based on your last few posts that you have written about CCTV and whether he could leave on foot or not it seems you have no understanding of it.

Either that or I am being dumb and am not understanding your comments.


Yes - of course he could have walked out of the horseshoe area (the area which he walked off camera into) without being seen on CCTV.

The rotating camera could have missed him walking out of there....

But he STILL would be stuck inside a small area in which all exits are covered off by CCTV. So no there is a 100% chance of him being seen leaving on foot.

Unless he left after 4pm.

What do you want me to say? I have read all the threads and have my opinion. Unless I see proof the Cornhill rear cam was working that day then my opinion will not change.

 

[Anniesnoop]

What do you want me to say? I have read all the threads and have my opinion. Unless I see proof the Cornhill rear cam was working that day then my opinion will not change.

I agree shires, with so many inconsistencies in this case, nothing can be ruled in or out ....jmo.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using Tapatalk

 

[Julieo55]

Right third time lucky, I have spent the evening trawling the 12 road names I had for military quarters. None seem to fall in the 5km ping ring. If anyone knows different, let us know. So then I started looking at the location of the quarters in bury. If he were walking from flex to mamma Mia to the quarters, he was heading in the wrong direction. If he had arranged a lift, he could have been picked up at mama Mia's or the side of cornhill shopping centre. So why move, well if you are going to wait for someone to pick you up and know it's going to be 5/10 minutes maybe he said I'll meet you down the road (is it easier to pull in/spin round there than outside mamma Mia's?) He is trying to eat, knows he has 10 minutes to kill and sits down as he is dropping his food, dozes off due to being drunk and isn't really aware of time passing (perhaps doesn't particularly think he is falling asleep), he is sat in hughes at an angle where he can perhaps see if a car comes across to the horseshoe. Not realising how much time has passed when he wakes (how many times do we see the time, but still have to look again if someone asks the time as we don't really notice it) he wanders to the road by cornhill sticking to the left and spots a similar vehicle in the horseshoe in the right. This vehicle is empty and parked, but he mistakenly thinks it his lift and goes over, it's not, so he wanders back down the other road, what happens next I don't know.

I don't know about RAF personnel, but a lot of USAF rent privately in the town. I have two neighbours who are USAF and I also own a property which has been rented solely to USAF personnel. Both my houses are in the Medieval Grid.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Three left to be identified. The other photos were removed as each person was positively identified.

Anyone know when this happened so I can go back and find the thread? There is no date on the police page (that I can see in my half asleep state!)

 

[carbuncle69]

The camera rotates 9 positions in 4.5 minutes, 2 positions on Horseshoe. C was on cam going in so there was opportunity for him to leave on foot when the cam was pointing back up Brentgovel. Not only is it possible but that is only around a 25% chance of being seen leaving on foot or in a vehicle IMO. If he hasn't left then he must be still there .

Shireslueth, for reasons I don't understand you persist in ignoring the CCTV at the back of the Cornhill shopping center. That (not the cam on Greenwoods) defines the northern boundary of the area Corrie could have moved around undetected, and also the area they can see cars exit and enter. This was clarified for us in the update on the 30th December, and expanded upon a week or so later when Nicola shared the "walkaround" video. That's why the family, and it seems the police, believe Corrie could not have left on foot.

Police say it’s virtually impossible to walk more than a few yards from the spot where McKeague was last seen without being caught on camera.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4118636/Was-RAF-man-vanished-air-abducted-terrorists.html

There's a few obvious riders:
- This is only true up to 4pm on the Saturday so far, that we know.
- There's apparently a small chance, if someone was deliberately avoiding cameras, the could "escape"

But just to reiterate, the fact that corrie could have evaded the Greenwoods cam does not imply he could leave the area.

 

[MidsummersDay]

http://www.itv.com/thismorning/hot-topics/help-me-find-my-missing-son-findcorrie#


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Shiressleuth]

"Image 8 is person on bike. Please note that it is just the cyclist that needs to be identified."

Interesting wording? Suggests to me the car driver is known or has been spoken to...and if so, DOESN'T know the cyclist?
JMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Also notice NO cycle lights. That suggest to me that he and his bike are local. Minimum exposure to the authorities etc...?
JMO

Midsummer, Truth has id this spot and I have also looked at the grapes footage of C and you see the road sign just at the beginning of that video. Is there a way you can do your stuff with this guys bike and the one against the lamppost outside the grapes in that first video of C to try to match the bike? Am wondering if it was a grapes doorman and that was his bike parked outside?

 

[mrseeker]

I can't personally see how a phone/sim card could ping without a power source. Remove the battery or turn off the phone, the sim card won't be pinging anything.

8am seems an awful 'exact' time for the phone to lose its ping/run out of battery.

I think his phone had an alarm set for 8am, or thereabouts.

Wasn't 8am when C's car parking would be flagged up for ticketing???? Perhaps he set an alarm on his phone for 8am and when the alarm went off, the phone was turned off/battery removed...by someone...?

That's a very interesting observation. Perhaps the alarm took what was left of the battery. Or perhaps that is when the garbage from the bin was destroyed.

 

[Northern Light]

Anyone know when this happened so I can go back and find the thread? There is no date on the police page (that I can see in my half asleep state!)

We didn't have them on the thread. Only Midsummer's two. Yesterday I think and all were on Suffolk Constabulary still, today.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Shireslueth, for reasons I don't understand you persist in ignoring the CCTV at the back of the Cornhill shopping center. That (not the cam on Greenwoods) defines the northern boundary of the area Corrie could have moved around undetected, and also the area they can see cars exit and enter. This was clarified for us in the update on the 30th December, and expanded upon a week or so later when Nicola shared the "walkaround" video. That's why the family, and it seems the police, believe Corrie could not have left on foot.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4118636/Was-RAF-man-vanished-air-abducted-terrorists.html

There's a few obvious riders:
- This is only true up to 4pm on the Saturday so far, that we know.
- There's apparently a small chance, if someone was deliberately avoiding cameras, the could "escape"

But just to reiterate, the fact that corrie could have evaded the Greenwoods cam does not imply he could leave the area.

Carbuncle, please see my reply to Db on last page.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

Midsummer, Truth has id this spot and I have also looked at the grapes footage of C and you see the road sign just at the beginning of that video. Is there a way you can do your stuff with this guys bike and the one against the lamppost outside the grapes in that first video of C to try to match the bike? Am wondering if it was a grapes doorman and that was his bike parked outside?

I had a quick look and they are very different bikes. The Corrie CCTV one looks like a ladies town bike with a rear chrome mudguard. The mans bike is a racer with no rear mudguard.

 

[mrseeker]

The only problem with he could not have walked out of the HS without being caught on some CCTV is he couldn't drive out either. If he did not leave in one of the 4 vehicles seen, then there must be other vehicles. He clearly is not there NOW and he left somehow. I think he walked out and they missed it due to cameras cycling or he left after they stopped watching.

 

[carbuncle69]

Carbuncle, please see my reply to Db on last page.

The problem with that is that if the Camera isn't working then the Family are flat out lying. Not only that, but they've harangued the under resourced and stretched police into some serious investigative work that they could avoid by pointing the lie out. Because if Corrie could walk out of there, no Mystery. He chucked his phone in the bin and did a runner.

I don't buy that for a minute. But we're spending an inordinate amount of time going round in circles debating something, where even Plod is briefing reporters consistent with the family.

 

[Antonia]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I noticed in Midsummers' enlargement that the white t-shirt in the 3.21 photo appears to have a collar, like a polo shirt, but the newly-released photo of a man in a white t-shirt appears to show just a plain crew neck to the t-shirt https://www.suffolk.police.uk/news/missing-persons/corrie-mckeague

Also, the figure in the 3.21 photo seems to me to be of slighter build, perhaps just a youngish lad, compared to the one in recently-released photo. JMO

ETA ...my point being that they appear to be two different people to me. JMO

 

[Antonia]

The only problem with he could not have walked out of the HS without being caught on some CCTV is he couldn't drive out either. If he did not leave in one of the 4 vehicles seen, then there must be other vehicles. He clearly is not there NOW and he left somehow. I think he walked out and they missed it due to cameras cycling or he left after they stopped watching.

He could have been driven out by someone else, eg in the boot, lying on the back seat. AFAIK, one of the four vehicles had no legitimate reason for being there, and one or more of the vehicles are the subject of ongoing investigations.

 

[mrseeker]

He could have been driven out by someone else, eg in the boot, lying on the back seat. AFAIK, one of the four vehicles had no legitimate reason for being there, and one or more of the vehicles are the subject of ongoing investigations.

I do not see that anywhere. Last I heard all four vehicles have been identified and had reason to be there. N said one had no reason to be there, but that was before they found it. Where is the link that says one or more are still being investigated?

 

[Antonia]

I do not see that anywhere. Last I heard all four vehicles have been identified and had reason to be there. N said one had no reason to be there, but that was before they found it. Where is the link that says one or more are still being investigated?

In the transcript of Nicola's Q&A, http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-24-September-2016-13&p=13043304#post13043304

"Now I am very deliberately just now, as being asked not to by police, giving any more details about those vehicles. I think something else frustrating is, I believe 3 have legitimate reason for being there for work but 1 doesn’t. The vehicles have been identified and the drivers have been spoken to and are still under investigation at this time."

The Q&A happened on 28 Dec 2017, link to video here: http://www.findcorrie.co.uk/2016/12/28/nicola-was-live-on-find-corrie-fb-group/

Is there a more up-to-date link saying the situation with investigation of the vehicles is any different from this?

 

[mrseeker]

In the transcript of Nicola's Q&A, http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-24-September-2016-13&p=13043304#post13043304

"Now I am very deliberately just now, as being asked not to by police, giving any more details about those vehicles. I think something else frustrating is, I believe 3 have legitimate reason for being there for work but 1 doesn’t. The vehicles have been identified and the drivers have been spoken to and are still under investigation at this time."

The Q&A happened on 28 Dec 2017, link to video here: http://www.findcorrie.co.uk/2016/12/28/nicola-was-live-on-find-corrie-fb-group/

Is there a more up-to-date link saying the situation with investigation of the vehicles is any different from this?

I know about her comments, but on the same webpage it says all four have been identified. And the police have never commented on the four since. When she made her comment about legitimate reasons, she did not know who was driving the fourth vehicle. The legitimate reason could be I was looking for a short cut or made a wrong turn. If the police think one of those vehicles could still be suspect, I would think we would have heard that from them.