UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #15

[db09striker]

Thanks to EarthSpirit for returning to the point about Corrie walking out of the Horseshoe whilst the CCTV rotated and then entering a vehicle. Nicola went to the trouble of filming this route so obviously thinks it is a major possibility.
I queried why only 4 vehicle going into the Horseshoe are being mentioned and some contributors thought that the Horseshoe was the whole area. Looking at the diagram on the website this doesn't seem to be the case with just the bin area described as the Horseshoe.
I still can't get my head round what would be the next CCTV to pick up this vehicle.

For me....I don't know why the family would not mention other vehicles that came into or left that area (by area I mean the whole area which isn't covered by CCTV, so the Horseshoe + down Short Brackland etc.)

If they do literally mean 4 cars came into that smaller 'horseshoe' bit then why are they telling us this.....it makes no sense why they would say this when the whole area matters.

So I have to believe they mean 4 cars were seen in the whole area, the whole space.

Makes no sense to dismiss other cars that went no further than Short Brackland. No sense whatsoever.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

Thanks to EarthSpirit for returning to the point about Corrie walking out of the Horseshoe whilst the CCTV rotated and then entering a vehicle. Nicola went to the trouble of filming this route so obviously thinks it is a major possibility.
I queried why only 4 vehicle going into the Horseshoe are being mentioned and some contributors thought that the Horseshoe was the whole area. Looking at the diagram on the website this doesn't seem to be the case with just the bin area described as the Horseshoe.
I still can't get my head round what would be the next CCTV to pick up this vehicle.

To be honest I've been pretty clear in my own mind about the possibilities of the area re: vehicles and people on foot.

Rear Cornhill camera
Front Cornhill camera
St John Street camera
Ipswich Street camera
Station Hill camera
Plus possibly/likely the shop on Cannon Street opposite Cadney Lane

The above would catch the vehicles IMO if not 100% of someone on foot, but actually we don't know that the CCTV is what led to finding the vehicles as the drivers could all have come forward themselves.

 

[redfanforever1970]

We can discuss them, as long as we stick to what's been reported in the media.

<modsnip>

<modsnip>

Paternity hasn't been questioned in the media except two people saying C is the father. I've no idea why it should be questioned.

<modsnip>

 

[MidsummersDay]

Thanks to EarthSpirit for returning to the point about Corrie walking out of the Horseshoe whilst the CCTV rotated and then entering a vehicle. Nicola went to the trouble of filming this route so obviously thinks it is a major possibility.
I queried why only 4 vehicle going into the Horseshoe are being mentioned and some contributors thought that the Horseshoe was the whole area. Looking at the diagram on the website this doesn't seem to be the case with just the bin area described as the Horseshoe.
I still can't get my head round what would be the next CCTV to pick up this vehicle.

These are the rough CCTV visual footprints of the area as per my previous posts. Blue hatched is a CCTV blind spot.

This would be the exit routes out of the 'Horseshoe'.
Orange route is legal route.
Red route is a one way wrong way infringement route.
Blue dots represent CCTV cameras.

This map overlays the CCTV cameras.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MidsummersDay]

For me....I don't know why the family would not mention other vehicles that came into or left that area (by area I mean the whole area which isn't covered by CCTV, so the Horseshoe + down Short Brackland etc.)

If they do literally mean 4 cars came into that smaller 'horseshoe' bit then why are they telling us this.....it makes no sense why they would say this when the whole area matters.

So I have to believe they mean 4 cars were seen in the whole area, the whole space.

Makes no sense to dismiss other cars that went no further than Short Brackland. No sense whatsoever.

3 cars and 1 bin lorry = 4 vehicles.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Pinkpuma]

<modsnip>

Paternity hasn't been questioned in the media except two people saying C is the father. I've no idea why it should be questioned.

<modsnip>

You really have no idea why paternity should be questioned? Maybe because they were seeing other people when they were together? The paternity being questionable isn't anyone being disrespectful, it's a very real possibility in that situation. I think any man would want a DNA test in those circumstances.

 

[Clevercat]

3 cars and 1 bin lorry = 4 vehicles.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Do we know for sure that the 3 other vehicles are cars?

 

[Pinkpuma]

If April and Corrie were both seeing other people when they got together then could this bring a revenge attack into question? I would say I'm sure the police have looked into that but who knows with this case!

 

[Dcflag]

Do we know for sure that the 3 other vehicles are cars?

No we dont

 

[MidsummersDay]

No we dont

It's been stated in the Q&A at the beginning of the Thread Dc.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[db09striker]

3 cars and 1 bin lorry = 4 vehicles.

Yes - that is what I mean't.

And as someone has said it may not have been 3 'cars'.

Could have been a van or another truck/lorry.

But yes there was obviously 1 bin lorry.

 

[guruagain]

These are the rough CCTV visual footprints of the area as per my previous posts. Blue hatched is a CCTV blind spot.

This would be the exit routes out of the 'Horseshoe'.
Orange route is legal route.
Red route is a one way wrong way infringement route.
Blue dots represent CCTV cameras.

This map overlays the CCTV cameras.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have mentioned it a few times so not sure if you are missing it but you can drive a vehicle out of the horseshoe via the front of the Cornhill Shopping centre - as per the google car, you don't need to go down Short Brackland.

 

[evansrc3]

Apologies if referring to a previous post from that in turn refers to something forbidden is overstepping the mark. A bit tricky.

Have been trying to find stuff to kill this off in my mind, but unable to write it off yet.


I don&#8217;t doubt the police&#8217;s competence, but I still don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a safe assumption to make that they definitely spotted that figure prior to the pod. (Very tricky to spot, especially when concentrating on the running man and there is also the question of stretched resources.)


And that they didn&#8217;t draw attention to that figure at the pod only because they already knew exactly who it was.


Also, all the previous reference to the figure describes him or her wearing dark clothing, which I&#8217;m still convinced is incorrect given the lighting conditions.


I agree it could be a woman in a long dress wearing boots. But is that likely attire for someone going on the lash until 3 in the morning? Wouldn&#8217;t a woman hanging around in an alleyway (possibly in a doorway) at that time of night be likely to wear a skirt of a shorter cut?


Whether or not it is Corrie I do believe that it proves that Nicola&#8217;s claim: "(Please note that Corrie could not go any further on foot without being seen on CCTV") is incorrect.

http://www.findcorrie.co.uk/2017/01/09/possible-routes-without-being-seen-on-cctv-bury-st-edmunds/


In the film she if very specific in demonstrating what areas Corrie could have reached unseen before being picked up on CCTV, but covers no part of the alley.


And regardless who tested it, that CCTV demonstrates that if that figure started walking from the Horseshoe whilst the camera was focussed downwards at the other end then those movements would have been unseen.


And then when the camera changed focus and followed the running man, that figure could have walked to the end of that alley unseen by that CCTV camera.


The only thing that would kill that is if the CCTV outside that alley (I believe to the left opposite Hughes) was static not rotational and was constantly focussed on the alley exit.


Although I think the only claimed possibility, that Corrie left the Horseshoe at Short Brackland is more likely, that also seems to confound to claimed efficacy of the CCTV.

 

[Dcflag]

Apologies if referring to a previous post from that in turn refers to something forbidden is overstepping the mark. A bit tricky.

Have been trying to find stuff to kill this off in my mind, but unable to write it off yet.


I don&#8217;t doubt the police&#8217;s competence, but I still don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a safe assumption to make that they definitely spotted that figure prior to the pod. (Very tricky to spot, especially when concentrating on the running man and there is also the question of stretched resources.)


And that they didn&#8217;t draw attention to that figure at the pod only because they already knew exactly who it was.


Also, all the previous reference to the figure describes him or her wearing dark clothing, which I&#8217;m still convinced is incorrect given the lighting conditions.


I agree it could be a woman in a long dress wearing boots. But is that likely attire for someone going on the lash until 3 in the morning? Wouldn&#8217;t a woman hanging around in an alleyway (possibly in a doorway) at that time of night be likely to wear a skirt of a shorter cut?


Whether or not it is Corrie I do believe that it proves that Nicola&#8217;s claim: "(Please note that Corrie could not go any further on foot without being seen on CCTV") is incorrect.

http://www.findcorrie.co.uk/2017/01/09/possible-routes-without-being-seen-on-cctv-bury-st-edmunds/


In the film she if very specific in demonstrating what areas Corrie could have reached unseen before being picked up on CCTV, but covers no part of the alley.


And regardless who tested it, that CCTV demonstrates that if that figure started walking from the Horseshoe whilst the camera was focussed downwards at the other end then those movements would have been unseen.


And then when the camera changed focus and followed the running man, that figure could have walked to the end of that alley unseen by that CCTV camera.


The only thing that would kill that is if the CCTV outside that alley (I believe to the left opposite Hughes) was static not rotational and was constantly focussed on the alley exit.


Although I think the only claimed possibility, that Corrie left the Horseshoe at Short Brackland is more likely, that also seems to confound to claimed efficacy of the CCTV.

FWiw from personal memory the police were pointing out legs person on at least one of the pod days

 

[SOMETHINGWILLDO]

Any updates?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DanceCard]

Just a heads up, especially for anyone who may have bookmarked older pages from Find Corrie website.

I was looking through a couple of our old threads for some references to a particular piece of information last night and noticed that since the Find Corrie website update that's taken place in the last few days or so with pages rewritten/updated, some of our original links no longer work.
This means that some conversations we had on older threads no longer have an actual source, even though the conversations were based on what we could read on the website at the time.

 

[MidsummersDay]

Apologies if referring to a previous post from that in turn refers to something forbidden is overstepping the mark. A bit tricky.

Have been trying to find stuff to kill this off in my mind, but unable to write it off yet.


I don’t doubt the police’s competence, but I still don’t think it’s a safe assumption to make that they definitely spotted that figure prior to the pod. (Very tricky to spot, especially when concentrating on the running man and there is also the question of stretched resources.)


And that they didn’t draw attention to that figure at the pod only because they already knew exactly who it was.


Also, all the previous reference to the figure describes him or her wearing dark clothing, which I’m still convinced is incorrect given the lighting conditions.


I agree it could be a woman in a long dress wearing boots. But is that likely attire for someone going on the lash until 3 in the morning? Wouldn’t a woman hanging around in an alleyway (possibly in a doorway) at that time of night be likely to wear a skirt of a shorter cut?


Whether or not it is Corrie I do believe that it proves that Nicola’s claim: "(Please note that Corrie could not go any further on foot without being seen on CCTV") is incorrect.

http://www.findcorrie.co.uk/2017/01/09/possible-routes-without-being-seen-on-cctv-bury-st-edmunds/


In the film she if very specific in demonstrating what areas Corrie could have reached unseen before being picked up on CCTV, but covers no part of the alley.


And regardless who tested it, that CCTV demonstrates that if that figure started walking from the Horseshoe whilst the camera was focussed downwards at the other end then those movements would have been unseen.


And then when the camera changed focus and followed the running man, that figure could have walked to the end of that alley unseen by that CCTV camera.


The only thing that would kill that is if the CCTV outside that alley (I believe to the left opposite Hughes) was static not rotational and was constantly focussed on the alley exit.


Although I think the only claimed possibility, that Corrie left the Horseshoe at Short Brackland is more likely, that also seems to confound to claimed efficacy of the CCTV.

You carry on my friend. You've obviously got a hunger for this particular event within the case. Just remember to be impartial, unbiased and distant in your thoughts. Use the fresh ideas of this forum to conclude things for you then present them as you have. You're doing a great job. Keep it up!

Incidentally, 'Legs Man/Woman' as well as 'Running man' may have been identified already. Not 100% sure though. It does prove our theory which was put forward by Markymint and others that evasion from the 'Horseshoe' is possible without being recognised (not necessarily seen).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[evansrc3]

Thanks.
I'd actually really like to hear something that absolutely confirms that figure is identified and is not him!
But yep like you say, not sold 100% on CCTV claim, there or on Short Brackland.

 

[Shiressleuth]

I must also say that I have never believed the 100% cannot leave on foot without being seen claim. I think there are several of us who have always thought this. Have never seen LE state this. The leaving on foot could be via SB, Looms or thru the building exits. This incorrect claim has always hampered the investigation IMHO. I hope the searches have been conducted on those foot routes out of the town centre especially where they are close to the Lark or other water sources regardless of that claim?

 

[Shiressleuth]

Can we also look at the cctv timings because I doubt them too?(Doubting thomas me today)
The LE reports that C was last seen at 3.20 getting up from the doorway. Then it is 3.25 entering last seen area. That short stretch would not have taken 5 minutes and he appeared to be moving quite fast so are these times correct? Also the phone movement is stated as 3.25 till 4.30 at Mildenhall so surely that means he was moving during that time or LE would have said 04.20 till 0430 at Mildenhall ?