UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #9

[suzyjackson]

It's a long way to go and a big labour/vehicle cost for 11kgs of recycling!

We don't have any definite info AFAIK but I'd assume that collection was just one of many that the lorry did that night. It would seem sensible that it does a route like a domestic bin lorry and picks up whatever there is in each bin. A collection run for one bin, I agree, would be madness

 

[MidsummersDay]

A ROUGH TIMELINE.
Amendments via me please to keep things neat.

0300: Shift start time & vehicle checked
0340: Vehicle departs for SB
0400: Bin man enters SB
0405: Driver fills in collection paperwork.
0415: Bin man starts collection procedure
0420: Bin man sees three teenagers in SB
0425: Bin man finishes collection procedure
0430: Bin man departs SB for BM
0500: Bin lorry arrives at BM roundabout.

2140: Corrie departs Hon in his own car (with a passenger?).
2200: Corrie parks in disabled bay in Robert Roby Way.
2200-2300: Corrie drinks in his car whilst making a phone call.
2305: Corrie walks to SoBar pub.
2320: Corrie walks to Weatherspoons.
0025: Corrie enters Flex night club.
0040: Corrie is 'ejected' from the nightclub.
0055: Corrie enters kebab shop.
0110: Corrie leaves kebab shop with kebab, chips and two burgers.
0115: Corrie seen walking purposefully towards The Grapes pub.
0300: Shift start time for bin man. Vehicle checked.
0308: Corrie sends/receives photo image from Hughes.
0340: Running man, Lurker & Legs man seen in 'Horseshoe'. Bin lorry departs for SB.
0400: Bin lorry enters SB.
0405: Bin lorry driver fills in collection paperwork.
0415: Bin lorry driver starts collection procedure.
0420: Three teenagers seen in Shortbrackland by bin man.
0425: Bin man finishes collection procedure in SB.
0430: Corrie's phone left the BSE mast area. Bin lorry departs SB along A1101 for BM.
0458: Corrie's phone enters BM mast area.
0500: Bin lorry arrives at BM roundabout.
0800: Corrie's phone goes silent within the BM mast area.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MidsummersDay]

Holy moly, just reread the timeline and the correlation of the bin lorry with Corrie's phone. The bin lorries' timings hinge around the 0420 statement of the sightings of the three teenagers. It's spookily close to Corrie's phone movements.
After all my deep, deep thinking...I'm wondering now if the lorry driver DID actually give Corrie a lift in the cab after a quick word with him to work out his destination that night?
The driver wouldn't be allowed passengers in his cab as it would be company policy and would breach the insurance...so is deniable. The offer of a tenner to go to (insert destination) and I'm sure the driver would consider it? After all, it's early morning and I doubt if there would be any taxis available. Perhaps he grabbed this opportunity to go to Mildenhall as his offer of a lift from there wasn't forthcoming due to his Mildenhall driver being drunk already?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Northern Light]

Would this mean, Corrie would have to jump out of the lorry, if they are saying the bin lorry did not stop anywhere en route and this has been technically checked.

 

[MidsummersDay]

Would this mean, Corrie would have to jump out of the lorry, if they are saying the bin lorry did not stop anywhere en route and this has been technically checked.

They're saying a lot of things. The past statements don't match up. The 'facts' don't seem to hold up. The allegations seem unfounded. The vehicle configurations and numbers. The CCTV footage numbers. The 'picking a chip up off the floor' statement but they can't even read a number plate. No forensic evidence of him leaving the 'Horseshoe' but we have 'forensic' CCTV evidence of him entering and everybody else that night practically. CCTV footage of nearly 30+ people entering the 'Horseshoe' but no CCTV footage of them leaving. The list goes on.
I really do feel for the family but if there is NO evidence to support and justify an AWOL theory or God forbid a MURDER theory, then what else can the authorities do? Not one jot of evidence I've looked at so far would hold up in a court of law. NOT ONE.

Like I said, I feel the families frustration.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Mindie304]

This could of happened, if his phone is waterproof ? I think it's waterproof for about 4 hours

Could the phone pings be connected to corrie walking back out unseen then falling in the Lark and then being carried along in the river to the BM mast area? Looks like the river flows that way. Could the flow be 12mph? Has the river been searched at the BM end? We had a young boy actually seen falling in our local river and rescue attempts were begun immediately but sadly he was never found. In Corrie's case he was not even reported missing till almost three days later.

 

[JamesKing]

They (the police) worked out that "it took 28 minutes" for the phone to travel from Bury to the Barton Mills area.

So that's "when it was pinging in Bury" to "when it was pinging from the masts in the Barton area".

BUT ....we don't know from what time (approx) Point A was. And what time (approx) Point B was (even though it took the time it took).

If we say Corrie enters the horseshoe at 0325
And it is believed he left in a car (no times given).
Then "just add 28 minutes" to when the cars departed and 28 minutes to when the lorry departed ....and there's (a rough) answer!

Obvious "mast pings" aren't an exact science, but if a car (that may be suspected that Corrie is in) leaves the horseshoe at 0430 and the phone is pinging at 0430 in Barton.... then the phone is in the bin lorry ! (because it can't be in the car !).

Why is this issue being made complicated by the "official" sources???

 

[Mindie304]

Although I don't like the idea of not being found ��

 

[DanceCard]

Well this is very odd indeed because I'm sure that Tony stated that the reason the family was unhappy with the police was because the police had ruled out 'any third-party involvement' from the start and were basing their investigations on that!

Unfortunately I've not go ttime this morning to try to find his comment about that - does anyone else remember him saying that? I'll be back with a source later today but if anyone else remembers this it would be helpful.

So, just a quick follow up to my earlier post.


Nicola says this morning "“From day one, I was being told that it was being treated as a homicide, without any evidence or a body."
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/new...-mckeague-corries-mum-questions-police-probe/

TW said in his radio interview in November : "Now the challenge with that is, from the outset the police were determined to tell the media that there was no third party involvement."
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11343093/CM_Podcast_0311_Transcript.txt

TW :
“As a result, there is a lack of trust towards the media management approach the police have employed to date, including coming out immediately after Corrie disappeared, emphatically claiming there was ‘no third party involvement’, clearly not a statement supported by the evidence then or now.”
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/pi...n-corrie-mckeague-as-family-question-tactics/

And Nicola :
http://www.findcorrie.co.uk/2016/11/04/forces-tv-4th-november/
"Mrs Urquhart, a police officer from Fife, has spoken about her fears that her son got into a vehicle ‘willingly or unwillingly’.
Today she said the statement by police when Corrie first disappeared that there was ‘no third party involvement’ was a mistake."




So either :

A) the police have been telling the family one thing, the media/public another.

or

B) Nicola's statement in the Courier today is referring to the level of resources the police were telling the family that they were putting into the investigation. ie When Nicola refers to "I was told that it was being treated as a homicide, without any evidence or a body" does she mean that the police were saying to her that they were putting in the same amount of resources in to the investigation as if it was a homicide, OR does she mean that the police were actually 'treating it as a homicide'?

It's really no surprise that there's so much confusion around this case. In the end, this case could prove to be a very good example of why police and other authorities usually prefer families to not get involved at this level, when stating 'facts' about the case becomes a murky exchange of confused information etc. Or it could prove Corrie's family right, that it's essential for family to get involved at this level in order to solve a case. We'll see.

 

[Pinkpuma]

Well this is very odd indeed because I'm sure that Tony stated that the reason the family was unhappy with the police was because the police had ruled out 'any third-party involvement' from the start and were basing their investigations on that!

Unfortunately I've not go ttime this morning to try to find his comment about that - does anyone else remember him saying that? I'll be back with a source later today but if anyone else remembers this it would be helpful.

Yes I remember that too, it was the reason I initially assumed he'd fallen into water walking home drunk or something.

 

[guruagain]

This could of happened, if his phone is waterproof ? I think it's waterproof for about 4 hours

Too many locks and weirs for this to be considered.

 

[JamesKing]

Sometimes I get the feeling that Corrie just arrived on earth "that day" as no one "officially" seems to know what he was doing !

He parked in a Disabled Bay.
I doubt that was the first time he'd done that.
So, when was he going to pick up his car ?

Everything was "normal" is what we are told.
So "normally", when he did take his car into town on a night out, when did he pick it up ?

Don't tell me he never normally parked in that spot...but normally has a two hour kip in a doorway !

 

[WhereIsJohnnyGosch]

I don't feel lingering on what was said in the opening days of the investigation actually adds anything to the current situation or can be used to second guess the path the police are going with it. It stands to reason that the as things progress people's opinions or knowledge on the matter will change, certain members of the family may have said things without knowing what the police have found in the interim, the police may have made statements without knowing what the family have found etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[suzyjackson]

So, just a quick follow up to my earlier post.


Nicola says this morning "“From day one, I was being told that it was being treated as a homicide, without any evidence or a body."
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/new...-mckeague-corries-mum-questions-police-probe/

TW said in his radio interview in November : "Now the challenge with that is, from the outset the police were determined to tell the media that there was no third party involvement."
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11343093/CM_Podcast_0311_Transcript.txt

TW :
“As a result, there is a lack of trust towards the media management approach the police have employed to date, including coming out immediately after Corrie disappeared, emphatically claiming there was ‘no third party involvement’, clearly not a statement supported by the evidence then or now.”
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/pi...n-corrie-mckeague-as-family-question-tactics/

And Nicola :
http://www.findcorrie.co.uk/2016/11/04/forces-tv-4th-november/
"Mrs Urquhart, a police officer from Fife, has spoken about her fears that her son got into a vehicle ‘willingly or unwillingly’.
Today she said the statement by police when Corrie first disappeared that there was ‘no third party involvement’ was a mistake."




So either :

A) the police have been telling the family one thing, the media/public another.

or

B) Nicola's statement in the Courier today is referring to the level of resources the police were telling the family that they were putting into the investigation. ie When Nicola refers to "I was told that it was being treated as a homicide, without any evidence or a body" does she mean that the police were saying to her that they were putting in the same amount of resources in to the investigation as if it was a homicide, OR does she mean that the police were actually 'treating it as a homicide'?

It's really no surprise that there's so much confusion around this case. In the end, this case could prove to be a very good example of why police and other authorities usually prefer families to not get involved at this level, when stating 'facts' about the case becomes a murky exchange of confused information etc. Or it could prove Corrie's family right, that it's essential for family to get involved at this level in order to solve a case. We'll see.

BBM - I think Tony was wrong when he said the police emphatically said that, I really don't think they did and I checked a while back, in their official releases they said that all options were being considered. Now maybe they had other secret meetings with the media where they said something different but why would they do that? Almost in the same breath Tony was talking about a D notice so the police talking to the media wouldn't be likely to happen if that were true.

I understand Tony's frustration but I don't think some of the things he says are his opinions rather than hard facts

JMO

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

I don't want to be disrespectful to anyone, but logically that statement just makes no sense to me. Why would you treat it as a homicide if there was zero evidence that it was? surely you could only conclude that it was homicide if you had something that pointed you that way (however tiny that something might be)...in the total absence of any evidence it could be any number of things...and resources not being infinite (as horrible as it is that it comes down to that ) you would want to be sure that you were *barking up the right tree*. I don't know what is being said publicly v's what's being thought privately, but there seems little evidence of anyone other than the family (not the Police, not the RAF) regarding it as being that criminally serious. Which must be awful for the family. I don't know what to think anymore.

In the previous thread the other day I posted a link to the ACPO missing person guide book and one of the first things it says is "If in doubt, think murder" for missing people in suspicious circumstances or unexplained.

So treating it as a homicide isn't something out of the ordinary.

 

[MidsummersDay]

I don't just post things on this forum without a real 'feel' for it. I methodically go through all the processes, the mind thoughts, the 'facts', the timelines.....everything. But I have to say that if it went to a court of law, I feel someone would be charged big time with wasting the court's time. How the hell so much misguided and misjudged information can come from such a seemingly simple case? He goes out for a drink, he's seen on CCTV just before he disappears. I just don't get it. I've ploughed so much effort in to this case....hours, days. I've even woke in the early hours with a new theory and checked here to see if anyone else has just thought of it. I just don't get it. I ain't going to shelve the case as that would be an admission of defeat and that's not what I'm all about.
I think by now we have to accept that Corrie exited the area by vehicle of some description and also we have to consider the next stage of the enquiry. That of his whereabouts thereafter. It's blatantly obvious to me that there are a number of options;

1. Christmas is approaching and if he was living in someone's MQ then it would be noticed round about now or leading up to Christmas period proper.

If he has succumbed to a fate which we really don't want to consider, then how has that happened?

2. If it's a murder then the body would have to have been disposed of somewhere where others wouldn't find it necessarily. This could be a building, barn, outhouse, loft, cellar, bedroom, shed, forest with vehicle access, remote ditch (Soham twins)...more than likely an open environment like a forest if we think about it.
A third party involvement would be the obvious link. Again, I still maintain that his last numbers on his phone are crucial in finding out who the lift was from (regardless if he did or not).

3. If it's an accident then the body would surely be found in a relatively underused area for pedestrians such as a fast road, remote wood, riverbank...
I've known cars drive off the main national speed limit road out of base in the early hours, through the long grass, down the embankment and stay there unseen with its occupant for days. The husband has been overseas and no one has been the wiser. I've known high ranking army lads found swinging from trees and we've all heard stories of old ladies stuck in weirs as well as others. A slow moving, 12" deep river doesn't seem to fit for me if there are a plethora of crossing opportunities.

4. If it's medical, perhaps a heart attack whilst 'on the job' or on the way home? I've known military guys who were in their twenties have them. Fit as a butcher's dog but passed away with an apple in their hand so to speak. Perhaps he self administered painkillers for a hangover headache? He was the team medic after all.

5. If it's AWOL he can't hide for long. Like I said earlier, a young lad with Christmas and Hogmanay around the corner. High profile social media accounts. Man the ports and keep an eye out in Lanzerote!?

6. Certain groups who I refuse to give acknowledgement were active in NI a long while ago. Their technique was to snatch and ransom. I seem to remember a certain RM winning a large medal for it. Unfortunately he didn't make it back to collect it. I doubt that this has happened with Corrie though.

7. The bin lorry does seem to fit with increasing accuracy. I've shifted my thought process constantly over the ten weeks trying to nail this one down but to no avail. I get a twitchy feeling with this.

I think it may be time to sit back for awhile and observe...



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[hazel324]

ok, so....who's up for some on the ground sleuthing?? a local, polo or mel, SLD286 maybe...

that's if refuse company is following same procedure (and it's quite possible it may have changed)

we have the opportunity to nail down timings, route and (importantly) final destination, as there has been much debate over where the trash (& possibly phone) ended up.

local waiting with vehicle from, say, 3.30am TOMORROW morning

photographic evidence bin lorry entering bin area, selecting bin, lifting procedure etc... record timings for each manoeuvre and time of departure

follow in vehicle noting route, speeds, timings and basically just find out where the bloomin' truck stops, ends up etc...

sure, this aint gonna solve the case but, if procedure hasn't changed, it will be a chance for some detective work on the ground and at least answer some of the questions that have so far been subject of much conjecture.

goodnight!

 

[DanceCard]

I don't feel lingering on what was said in the opening days of the investigation actually adds anything to the current situation

My 'lingering' post was in response to something said by Nicola this morning.
Nicola herself was the catalyst for my post when she referred to what she was told in the opening days of the investigation, she clearly feels that ' lingering on what was said in the opening days of the investigation' is relevant and important.

 

[Mindie304]

Yes I see, did a little research

http://www.stedmundsburychronicle.co.uk/riverlark/larkafter1600.htm

Too many locks and weirs for this to be considered.

 

[Pinkpuma]

Holy moly, just reread the timeline and the correlation of the bin lorry with Corrie's phone. The bin lorries' timings hinge around the 0420 statement of the sightings of the three teenagers. It's spookily close to Corrie's phone movements.
After all my deep, deep thinking...I'm wondering now if the lorry driver DID actually give Corrie a lift in the cab after a quick word with him to work out his destination that night?
The driver wouldn't be allowed passengers in his cab as it would be company policy and would breach the insurance...so is deniable. The offer of a tenner to go to (insert destination) and I'm sure the driver would consider it? After all, it's early morning and I doubt if there would be any taxis available. Perhaps he grabbed this opportunity to go to Mildenhall as his offer of a lift from there wasn't forthcoming due to his Mildenhall driver being drunk already?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In my opinion it's far more likely the phone went in the bin lorry but not Corrie (i.e it got dumped in the Horseshoe intentionally). The bin lorry enters the Horseshoe at 4am so what was Corrie doing for half an hour with nobody seeing him, plus the lorry was thoroughly checked forensically which would obviously include the cab. They would know if he'd been in there. I agree the timings of the phone coincide with the bin lorry so much so that I absolutely go with his phone being in the bin that was collected.