The family are not under any obligation to answer any of your questions.
UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #1
- Thread starter MelmothTheLost
- Start date
- Status
The only truth that matters here is what happened to him after 3.25am. Police would have established exactly what he did before this time, it's not relevant for the public to know exactly what time he got to BSE at or if he was on the phone to people before he left base. Giving unnecessary detail out leads to speculation and there is enough of that already.
It's great that we've all got ideas and it's an iterative process. For what is worth my thoughts:
not AWOL, wouldn't put his family through this, wouldn't start from the bin location, wouldn't leave puppy or car, didn't take any funds, no jacket.
Accident a good possibility, but as time goes by the probability of accident drops rapidly,
Foul play, looking more likely as time goes by, no body found, no money taken from account.
The question in my mind as time passes is what type of foul play.
The data should be considered in the light of events.
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
MelmothTheLost
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2016
- Messages
- 4,056
- Reaction score
- 4,685
How many of these cases actually go missing apparently without a trace for a considerable period of time, rather than bunking off for a weekend with the girlfriend and turning themselves in on Monday morning, or spending a few weeks on mum's sofa?
Do you know of any cases, recent or otherwise, of a serving member of the UK armed forces simply disappearing in this sort of way and not being found?
I just wanted to say something about the facts of the case and what the family have put out.
The family have as much chance to get basic facts wrong as everyone else. It all depends on how they interpret things that they see and hear. We have seen that already with the ever changing story of the night leading up to 3.24. I like to see small details are correct yet even on the find corrie page www.findcorrie.co.uk the small details are wrong so how are the big details going to be correct.
the page starts "
"Missing Serving Senior Airman Corrie McKeague"
I think that this may give the impression that he is an important rank and a worthy target if someone wanted to target military personnel. He isn't (though don't get me wrong I still respect all service personnel) He is a lower rank about as low as there is once you are out of training.
"Corrie is a Senior Aircraft man in the RAF Regimental Gunners 2 Squadron, C Flight" - no Corrie is a Senior Aircraftman (no space and this is his rank) in the RAF Regiment as a gunner (this is his trade) assigned to II Squadron RAF Regiment or No. 2 Squadron RAF Regiment.
Just little things but they are basics and should be correct.
....
Going on to sexuality - I don't think it is such a big thing these days - It is accepted in society and forces attitudes only reflect society. 20 years ago it was still not allowed in the forces but was a case of we wont ask if you don't tell us. Nowadays it is perfectly acceptable with the first RAF same sex marriage taking place a few weeks ago. I don't think it has any bearing on this mystery though and I don't think Corrie is gay in any case.
The family have as much chance to get basic facts wrong as everyone else. It all depends on how they interpret things that they see and hear. We have seen that already with the ever changing story of the night leading up to 3.24. I like to see small details are correct yet even on the find corrie page www.findcorrie.co.uk the small details are wrong so how are the big details going to be correct.
the page starts "
"Missing Serving Senior Airman Corrie McKeague"
I think that this may give the impression that he is an important rank and a worthy target if someone wanted to target military personnel. He isn't (though don't get me wrong I still respect all service personnel) He is a lower rank about as low as there is once you are out of training.
"Corrie is a Senior Aircraft man in the RAF Regimental Gunners 2 Squadron, C Flight" - no Corrie is a Senior Aircraftman (no space and this is his rank) in the RAF Regiment as a gunner (this is his trade) assigned to II Squadron RAF Regiment or No. 2 Squadron RAF Regiment.
Just little things but they are basics and should be correct.
....
Going on to sexuality - I don't think it is such a big thing these days - It is accepted in society and forces attitudes only reflect society. 20 years ago it was still not allowed in the forces but was a case of we wont ask if you don't tell us. Nowadays it is perfectly acceptable with the first RAF same sex marriage taking place a few weeks ago. I don't think it has any bearing on this mystery though and I don't think Corrie is gay in any case.
Interestingly, according to an MOD document, the RAF has the lowest AWOL figures...by a country mile.
However, in 2013 of the (only) 10 Air Force servicemen/women that went AWOL....
....all 10 were still AWOL after one year !
EDIT.... what is even more interesting is, the MOD only states "it holds some information" it doesn't say all.
It was a reply to an FOI request.
EDIT, EDIT.... there is another MOD document that disputes the first ! In this document, they quote higher figures.
So the "10" that were AWOL in 2013, turns into "26". !!!!
D
Deleted member 178385
Guest
I've been asked to compile a list of the most commonly asked questions (even the answered ones, if they're still being re-asked) with a view to having a pinned Q&A on the Facebook group. This will hopefully minimise/resolve some of the repetition and confusion!
I'm trawling through the thousands of comments on the group at the moment to work on this, but if anyone can think of a particularly burning question that they've seen asked but not answered, let me know!
I'm trawling through the thousands of comments on the group at the moment to work on this, but if anyone can think of a particularly burning question that they've seen asked but not answered, let me know!
The fact of the matter is, we don't know anything....
...and the facts we do have, seem to be disputed.
I do get that, for operational reasons, facts in there entirety will not be released....
...and that, the General Public (and facebookers) are only needed to keep the case in the "public eye" and generate possible new witnesses etc.
But the 11pm turns into possibly 9pm in the bars
The phone ceasing to transmit, went from 4.30am to 8.00am, then back again to 4.30am.
A 2 hour kip alone in a doorway, turns into "several passersby spoke to him".
Add to that, the police have conducted searches along his possible route home, but haven't conducted "house to house" enquiries. The RAF don't appear "that bothered", to put it bluntly.
Against "the possibility of Corrie going Absent Without Leave" are, he appears happy enough, he hasn't got any clothes with him (no idea if he had a bag in his car), they say his bank account hasn't been touched and he hadn't drawn out heaps of money previously. And he was drunk (not the best way to begin a "runaway" attempt).
So, all in all, I don't see it as an Absent Without Leave attempt. But then again. I don't know anything.
Edit. I'll also add. His walking home is disputed also. It went from "it was normal for him to do it" to "he never ever had done it". And yet it's reported a friend said "he said he was going to walk home".
...and the facts we do have, seem to be disputed.
I do get that, for operational reasons, facts in there entirety will not be released....
...and that, the General Public (and facebookers) are only needed to keep the case in the "public eye" and generate possible new witnesses etc.
But the 11pm turns into possibly 9pm in the bars
The phone ceasing to transmit, went from 4.30am to 8.00am, then back again to 4.30am.
A 2 hour kip alone in a doorway, turns into "several passersby spoke to him".
Add to that, the police have conducted searches along his possible route home, but haven't conducted "house to house" enquiries. The RAF don't appear "that bothered", to put it bluntly.
Against "the possibility of Corrie going Absent Without Leave" are, he appears happy enough, he hasn't got any clothes with him (no idea if he had a bag in his car), they say his bank account hasn't been touched and he hadn't drawn out heaps of money previously. And he was drunk (not the best way to begin a "runaway" attempt).
So, all in all, I don't see it as an Absent Without Leave attempt. But then again. I don't know anything.
Edit. I'll also add. His walking home is disputed also. It went from "it was normal for him to do it" to "he never ever had done it". And yet it's reported a friend said "he said he was going to walk home".
MelmothTheLost
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2016
- Messages
- 4,056
- Reaction score
- 4,685
With hookup apps any pre-arrangement could be just a few minutes, whether straight or gay.
However, that does not seem to fit such facts as we have. If a hookup was arranged for, say, the Barton Mills place how did Corrie get there without his car? There's no evidence he took a taxi all that way. And if a putative contact could pick him up in BSE, why would they need to go all the way to Barton Mills anyway? Surely the point of the pickup place is for those without an arrangement to go in the hope of a casual encounter.
mrazda71
Former Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 3,136
- Reaction score
- 11,408
Are you admin on the Facebook page or family?
MelmothTheLost
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2016
- Messages
- 4,056
- Reaction score
- 4,685
OK, thanks, that's useful information so far as it goes but I wonder how much effort the military, and the RAF in particular, put into tracking down individuals who have gone beyond AWOL to full blown desertion. I'm assuming there comes a point when this line is crossed. Does there come a point when they shrug their shoulders and stop looking, or does the search continue on and off indefinitely on a cold case-type basis?
I guess what I'm wondering is whether the RAF response to Corrie's disappearance is similar to the response in these other cases.
D
Deleted member 178385
Guest
Neither. I've been asked by a friend of the family after making the suggestion.
MelmothTheLost
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2016
- Messages
- 4,056
- Reaction score
- 4,685
As an aside in this case, I noticed an interesting story in the Daily Wail today:
British troops are warned their jogging apps could be used by terrorists for a Lee Rigby-style attack
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3886344/British-troops-warned-jogging-apps-used-terrorists-Lee-Rigby-style-attack.html
British troops are warned their jogging apps could be used by terrorists for a Lee Rigby-style attack
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3886344/British-troops-warned-jogging-apps-used-terrorists-Lee-Rigby-style-attack.html
How on Earth did you come to that conclusion?
MelmothTheLost
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2016
- Messages
- 4,056
- Reaction score
- 4,685
Agreed absolutely. Added to which is the matter of the puppy, which we are assured he would never abandon, and he is without his phone on which no doubt all his personal contact phone numbers would be stored.
I think the question here should really be, how many of these long-term AWOL have been reported as 'missing' to the police, because even if the RAF didn't do that, their families still should if they went missing under circumstances like those of Corrie's disappearance.
First and foremost, it's the Daily Fail, we know what they're like for wanting to stir up fear, and they're not beyond making up stories to suit their agenda.
If it's true, then it sounds like this is advice based on the Marham incident? Or it could be a journalist trying to make a story by adding together a possible terrorist abduction attempt and a popular type of phone app, because things like apps and cookies and things are always good for getting paranoid androids het up.
The story doesn't even add up. You wouldn't want secret briefings to put out an important message for the attention of every single soldier in the country or abroad. A source without a name in a paper like that usually means the story's author made the whole thing up.
Technically, an app that does what they're saying there is going to be a higher risk for young women who are at risk of sexual assault on these routes. People, civilian or military, should not make their habits known on social media...it's even risky on a closed account where you personally know everyone who you're 'friends' with, but on publically visible accounts, telling people things like your date of birth, your mother's maiden name, when you're going away for the weekend, etc, is a risk that everyone should be warned about.
But 'secret briefings' suggests that hardly anyone gets to hear these important warnings. An unnamed source says one, that it's made up, because why wouldn't someone give their name and rank? If the warnings have already gone out, then it's not something that needs to be kept secret, but the exact opposite.
Plus, I don't see what it has to do with Corrie going missing, because no one could have predicted that he'd be alone, in that place, at that time. How long would someone have had to watch and follow Corrie to even find out that he's in the military and therefore a 'target' for them, and why wouldn't they be spotted?
I left the phone out, because that could be an "Either / Or" thing.
As in, if you didn't want any contact with anyone, you'd lose the phone.
Whereas, if this was a crime, then someone else would likely throw away the phone.
Not necessarily - I don't think they would say anything.
Just going from my own experiences with Suffolk Police (I was a witness a couple of years ago). I can only say they were incredibly quick and thorough to interview me. But, when it came to arresting the perp, it seemed like nothing was going on, but actually behind the scenes they were working on it and arrested an ultimately got the perp to plead guilty with no trial, based on the amount of evidence they had amassed.
- Status