UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #1

[Amonet]

It's a curious thing that if you Google Corrie's name this thread appears somewhere down on the 5th page, whereas usually the Websleuths thread for any particular case is up there in the top handful of links. It's probably a measure of how much MSM coverage there has been of the case that we're down on the 5th page.

It was also instructive to go back to the first page or so of this thread and see what our instincts were right from the start.

I wouldn't be surprised if this discussion and others like it are being monitored by TPTB. I suspect some of our earlier out-there speculations may yet turn out to be much closer to the truth than we imagined at the time.

Regarding the bolded, I believe that is partly due to the amazing SEO work that the family are achieving. Every time someone on the FB page shares one of those news links and every twitter post will raise those links in the search rankings. This forum simply isn't being linked to in those quantities, its rankings are based more on content and organic visits.

In plain English, every time one of those media links is linked to by the 50,000 followers of that page, it brings those media links to the front pages of the Google search results. And that is in large part thanks to the family's efforts.

 

[Deleted member 178385]

It's my understanding that any D Notice relates to the press rather than the Police, but clearly information is being withheld from the public above and beyond what one expects in a police investigation.

Interestingly there was a specific comment from Tony regarding this. Someone had asked "Why would the police issue a d notice?" to which he'd replied "They don't issue them. They observe them, like the media does."

I'm trying to find the original thread on Facebook but I'm not seeing it so far - wonder if it's been deleted?


Edit: And my screenshot of his comment has been removed on here too for rule-breaking (whoops!).

 

[hermes&&]

Interestingly there was a specific comment from Tony regarding this. Someone had asked "Why would the police issue a d notice?" to which he'd replied "They don't issue them. They observe them, like the media does."

I'm trying to find the original thread on Facebook but I'm not seeing it so far - wonder if it's been deleted?


Edit: And my screenshot of his comment has been removed on here too for rule-breaking (whoops!).

I didn't think Tony's post would stay up for long but if it's been deleted it goes to show how sensitive this is and it's not just routine

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Interestingly there was a specific comment from Tony regarding this. Someone had asked "Why would the police issue a d notice?" to which he'd replied "They don't issue them. They observe them, like the media does."

Thanks for clarifying that. I'm not on Facebook so unfortunately there are things I miss or don't have access to.

It's all getting weirder by the day.

 

[Deleted member 178385]

Regarding the bolded, I believe that is partly due to the amazing SEO work that the family are achieving.

I would assume this is down to the help & advice Tony mentioned they were getting from 'their friends at Moonshot CVE'. He said it in the context of their FB presence, however their speciality seems to be 'counter-messaging campaigns', 'guerilla marketing' etc which would require excellent SEO / web presence management skills.

 

[JamesKing]

Interestingly there was a specific comment from Tony regarding this. Someone had asked "Why would the police issue a d notice?" to which he'd replied "They don't issue them. They observe them, like the media does."

Technically, a D Notice shouldn't effect a police investigation, in so much as "an investigation" is concerned.
It would however, directly impact the use the media by the police (and by the family).

It is that which makes this very strange. In a Missing Person enquiry, where the circumstances are "out of the ordinary", the use of the media has been paramount. There are numerous instances of this.

This also goes for a Murder enquiry, wherein potential witnesses are sought or more information pertaining to the circumstances is required or indeed where foul play is suspect, but the victim is missing.

So, in a Missing Person Enquiry, which maybe an Abduction Enquiry and possibly a Murder Enquiry, where the possible "third party" is completely unknown.... a "media black-out" is most bizarre indeed. Infact, I think this would be the only one.

 

[Deleted member 178385]

Technically, a D Notice shouldn't effect a police investigation, in so much as "an investigation" is concerned.
It would however, directly impact the use the media by the police (and by the family).

Yes, this was my understanding of his comment. Less about their investigation, more about certain details of the case that they can't discuss / publicise. Many people on the group had expressed frustration that the police didn't seem to be doing enough, so this may well be a way to reassure folks that they are working hard behind the scenes, but that there are certain aspects of the case that they're not able to disclose.

.... a "media black-out" is most bizarre indeed. Infact, I think this would be the only one.

Unless any of us are in the media and on the receiving end of said d-notice, would we even know if there'd been a blackout before?

 

[JamesKing]

Unless any of us are in the media and on the receiving end of said d-notice, would we even known if there'd been a blackout before?

That is unfortunately true.

All you can do is make "a best guess" when you see a story "go blank".

Of course some stories don't ever even hit the mainstream media.
So what you are left with are those that "do make it" to the Front Pages, but then quickly disappear.

A newspaper reporting the fact they have received a D Notice and so can no longer report anything, is a contravention of the D Notice. Clever hey !

 

[CoverMeCagney]

That is unfortunately true.

All you can do is make "a best guess" when you see a story "go blank".

Of course some stories don't ever even hit the mainstream media.
So what you are left with are those that "do make it" to the Front Pages, but then quickly disappear.

A newspaper reporting the fact they have received a D Notice and so can no longer report anything, is a contravention of the D Notice. Clever hey !

Sounds like it's similar to one of those celebrity super-injunctions, yes?

Presumably they're issued by a higher power than the police - MoD or the courts system?

 

[hermes&&]

Sounds like it's similar to one of those celebrity super-injunctions, yes?

Presumably they're issued by a higher power than the police - MoD or the courts system?

Would be the MOD rather than the courts.

But now we know that there is a known unknown before yesterday it was an unknown unknown


Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[suzyjackson]

What a lot has happened since I last posted, I'mm going to need some time to reread and digest but it seems to be looking more likely that there is something more that a simple explanation going on here.

The last time I looked at the facebook page there was discussion of private searches and door to door enquires, I wonder if those will be allowed to go ahead. It seems like Nicola is understandably wanting to do everything she can to find some new information, Uncle Tony seems more resigned to not being able to do much under the restrictionsHi,

 

[JamesKing]

They are actually issued by the "Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee".

So basically, a committee made up of "relevant members of various Government Departments" and "representatives of the Press and Broadcasting organisations".

Sounds a "cosy group". But it's just a committee where the Government tells the Press what NOT to print.

Here's the Govt Webpage on this department. It's provides a "very informative read"


https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/defence-press-and-broadcasting-advisory-committee

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Uncle Tony posted at 1am today (nearly 11 hours ago for those not on GMT) with an update. Nothing major, but poster LD asked why they are trying to maintain media coverage despite the DA notice and he replied "a D Notice does not necessarily mean a blanket restriction, it can impose certain restrictions on 'perspective' or specific elements not to be reported"

https://www.facebook.com/groups/307450186284715/

 

[hermes&&]

Apropos the D Notice, do you recall when the police announced that corrie's disappearance had nothing to do with his RAF status!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-37584808

Was that economical with the truth? Or has something changed?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[ChuckieD]

It likely isn't a factor. It is, however, bad publicity for the RAF if their Airmen has wandered off drunk and fallen in a ditch somewhere on his own and obviously if Corrie's job has some sort of connection to his job they will want to decide what the public know and what is their business only. Makes sense to me. A lot of stuff happens that is never public knowledge or is released so long after the event that it receives a tiny column in the corner of a newspaper page. It's just the way it works. A lot gets brushed under the carpet to save face.

 

[hermes&&]

It likely isn't a factor. It is, however, bad publicity for the RAF if their Airmen has wandered off drunk and fallen in a ditch somewhere on his own and obviously if Corrie's job has some sort of connection to his job they will want to decide what the public know and what is their business only. Makes sense to me. A lot of stuff happens that is never public knowledge or is released so long after the event that it receives a tiny column in the corner of a newspaper page. It's just the way it works. A lot gets brushed under the carpet to save face.

But the D Notice was according to the uncle, and I paraphrase, unfortunately impacting decisions on the case. I don't believe that would be justified just to save face. I think the D Notice is much more ominous than that.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[ChuckieD]

But the D Notice was according to the uncle, and I paraphrase, unfortunately impacting decisions on the case. I don't believe that would be justified just to save face. I think the D Notice is much more ominous than that.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

The truth will out hopefully. Personally, I don't believe his disappearance is anything to do with his job but obviously willing to stand corrected.

 

[JamesKing]

The truth will out hopefully. Personally, I don't believe his disappearance is anything to do with his job but obviously willing to stand corrected.

Personally, I don't think "they" know either.

Maybe "they" have done their own "risk assessment" on the situation, and after five weeks with no sign of Corrie McKeague, "they" decided that various scenarios can be ruled out, which only leaves a couple of possibilities remaining. One of those may include "abduction motivated by terrorism".

If it is felt that a "line of enquiry" should be pursued to look at that particular possibility, then that maybe a reason a "D Notice" was issued to the Mainstream Media.

If that is the case, then I believe "other possibilities" would still be pursed, with the "abduction" angle actively added into the mix, so to speak. That maybe concluded because he is indeed a serving member of the Armed Forces.

The timing maybe significant. In a case such as this, they do receive a "case review" after about 4 weeks. Since initially "everything" would be "on the table" (AWOL, suicide, accident, murder, abduction, etc, etc), they may have reduced these "likely scenarios" down now, being that it over a month since he went missing and targeted wide-scale searches have found nothing.

Just a thought.

 

[Kitkat28]

I think people are getting a little carried away with the grand conspiracy theory here. A D Notice is a perfectly normal occurrence in anything involving a member of the Armed Forces. There is the Official Secrets Act to consider, and obviously the media have to be careful about anything they publish. Therefore a D notice gives the media a framework for what they are allowed to write within the confines of the Act.

The notice has nothing to do with the investigation of an event, just the reporting of it.

 

[Ruthbullock]

It likely isn't a factor. It is, however, bad publicity for the RAF if their Airmen has wandered off drunk and fallen in a ditch somewhere on his own and obviously if Corrie's job has some sort of connection to his job they will want to decide what the public know and what is their business only. Makes sense to me. A lot of stuff happens that is never public knowledge or is released so long after the event that it receives a tiny column in the corner of a newspaper page. It's just the way it works. A lot gets brushed under the carpet to save face.

Sadly there has been several cases of that reported in our local press over the last few years. All found reasonably quickly after a trawl through the local river under the false belief it was quicker to swim home.