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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
As this person is not on the latest cctv to be id then they must have been eliminated. Website says body analysis has been done (legs?) on these people and they are not C. I believe the 03.21 figure could be C despite this claim and some believe 03.35 could be him too. Gait analysis cannot have been done unless they have moving cctv, which I doubt re the cornhill cam.
 
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?
You may be right that there are ways of him leaving by foot but the lack of any sightings makes me feel he didn't walk very far.
 
Mods. Are discussions of Faq 44 and 45 off limits completely? Just so we know. Thks.
 
Thanks GT. Sorry I had taken post 4 on this thread to mean we could discuss what family has said on the website.
My misunderstanding there.
 
Ok so we can discuss #45? The one that says he is attractive to men etc? It is important I think because it could be a factor in his disappearance IMo.
 
VICTIM FRIENDLY

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way, and only when such behavior is relevant to the case.

The "victim friendly" rule extends to the family members of victims and suspects. Sleuthing family members, friends, and others who have not been designated as suspects is not allowed. Don't make random accusations, suggest their involvement, nor bash and attack them. Posting their personal information, including names, addresses, and background data -- even if it is public -- is not allowed. That does not mean, however, that statements made by family members and other third parties cannot come into discussion as the facts of the case are reported in the media.


SOCIAL MEDIA - FACEBOOK, TWITTER, ETC.

Social media pages that fall in the following categories are OFF LIMITS.

Family members of either a victim or a suspect
Friends of either a victim or a suspect
Most any other individual

Don't link to these pages, nor make reference to information you find on them.


Please Note:

Corrie's girlfriend is OFF LIMITS to sleuthing. You may discuss what has been published in MSM regarding her, but you may not dig into social media or other pages in an effort to obtain more information and/or photos of her. She is a victim, and the above "victim friendly" rule extends to her.

Websleuths is a fact-based forum. Rumors and gossip are not permitted. When you state something as "fact," you must back it up with a link to an approved source. If you can't link it, you can't post it.

Please do not speculate regarding Corrie's sexual preference. There are no known facts to support the suggestion that he is gay or bi-sexual.

As Admin Bessie stated above, the Find Corrie Facebook page is OFF LIMITS. If you read it on Facebook, leave it on Facebook.

You are free to give as much or as little weight as you choose to the information provided by the family via their website http://www.findcorrie.co.uk. What you cannot do, however, is bash them, attack them, or suggest their involvement in Corrie's disappearance. Unless and until LE states otherwise, they are innocent victims who are desperate to find their loved one.

If you feel certain information provided by the family is questionable or contradictory, then please just limit your discussion to information published in MSM and/or provided by LE. Posts bashing or questioning various family statements are not productive. Please keep discussion focused on the topic of this thread - the disappearance of Corrie McKeague.

All previous mod and admin reminders still stand.

Thank you.

The Rules Forum
Etiquette & Information
The Rules - Social Media

Any questions regarding the rules should be addressed to a moderator via PM.

:tyou:
 
Ok so we can discuss #45? The one that says he is attractive to men etc? It is important I think because it could be a factor in his disappearance IMo.

You mean question 44.

Question 45 is about searching the area.

If your theory is that a possible perp was attracted to him, then yes, it is relevant and can be discussed.

If you just want to analyze and debate the content of FAQ 44, then no.
 
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 ?

I agree, times seem like they could be a bit off xx
 
I agree, times seem like they could be a bit off xx
realy we could say that if the bin lorry had anything to do with it the phone could not be near bm much before 4.40' if it was then the phone never travels in the bin,
 
You mean question 44.

Question 45 is about searching the area.

If your theory is that a possible perp was attracted to him, then yes, it is relevant and can be discussed.

If you just want to analyze and debate the content of FAQ 44, then no.
I'll go back and read again. The answer to one question refers reader also to another number. So in my discussion I will try and get numbers right. Thanks for clarifying what can be discussed.
ETA I did get numbers wrong. Q31 Is C gay? The answer no also then refers to Q44 q & a which GT has clarified above. One of our theories has been that this could make C a target especially that a.m. when vulnerable due to alcohol IMO.
 
Things bothering me about this case:

<modsnip>

Is the blue/ black roof car on the photos in your intro ( car A) the same blue car/ black roof on the cctv of 3 the youths? If so maybe this one of the eliminated vehicles.

Have all vehicles been eliminated? If there is one outstanding the I wonder if this is at 6am.

Could it have been suicide? Could he have jumped into the river? I have a family member who is larger than life, outgoing socially confident, charismatic man but he actually has very low self esteem, he has had issues with addiction and contemplated suicide. C's shows risk taking behaviour which is a sign of low self esteem.

My initial thought was that he'd been hit by a vehicle in the HS as he was asleep. Were there any vehicles in the HS when he went in? From the cctv I can't tell if running man goes into HS or continues on? Does anyone know?

Now I'm learning towards goes to back of focus to score drugs/ sex, and then I'm stumped!

Also where can I view the cctv of "legs"?
 
My understanding is that the bin area in the horseshoes was checked 'forensically' and no trace of Corrie was found. Do we know exactly when it was checked? Isn't it likely that this examination of the area could rule out Corrie going to the toilet there?
 
I'm looking, but have no idea, thinking one of the pod videos or reports- but know it has 100% been said. Give me time and I will find it, in between making the kids dinners.
Not enough to make me happy as a link but thread 10 on websleuths , anyone else who can remember the discussions on the pod? I'm sure it was from Nicola and possibly a video on news (hoping not facebook, as this was from pre facebook ban) but it was longer than the time noted here.
note, this could be out of sync by about 30 - 60 seconds, as there are no definitive time stamps on the 2 main CCTV cameras (unfortunately) to accurately line it up. The 3 angles on Grapes CCTV are speculative, I'm assuming it never points down to the ground like Greenwoods, and there could well be closeups in that one too. But for all intents and purposes, this graphic shows that gaps are very likely. Even a 30 second gap is long enough for Corrie to move away from bins to SB. So I'm still calling BS on "you can't leave Horseshoe undetected" ;)
the only reason I want people to think about it still, rather than discard as not factual is that it is erring on the side of caution, rather than eliminating on the basis those timings are exact, which they maybe, but probably aren't.
 
They have always say said there is up to 5 minutes time difference between cctv time stamps- I suppose depending on cameras.



Is this LE saying this Ruth?

I can't multiquote, but Ss you and so many others have put in many hours of great research and practical information here.

All extremely valuable stuff. I am unable to contribute since I only have imo and that isn't enough !

I do want all the contributors here to understand myself (and many other posters I'm sure) appreciate and consider all the arguments for and against that are put forward.

It doesn't fall on deaf ears I can assure you. Please continue to contribute your theories, ideas and possibilities (within TOS of course).







.
 
VICTIM FRIENDLY

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way, and only when such behavior is relevant to the case.

The "victim friendly" rule extends to the family members of victims and suspects. Sleuthing family members, friends, and others who have not been designated as suspects is not allowed. Don't make random accusations, suggest their involvement, nor bash and attack them. Posting their personal information, including names, addresses, and background data -- even if it is public -- is not allowed. That does not mean, however, that statements made by family members and other third parties cannot come into discussion as the facts of the case are reported in the media.


SOCIAL MEDIA - FACEBOOK, TWITTER, ETC.

Social media pages that fall in the following categories are OFF LIMITS.

Family members of either a victim or a suspect
Friends of either a victim or a suspect
Most any other individual

Don't link to these pages, nor make reference to information you find on them.


Please Note:

Corrie's girlfriend is OFF LIMITS to sleuthing. You may discuss what has been published in MSM regarding her, but you may not dig into social media or other pages in an effort to obtain more information and/or photos of her. She is a victim, and the above "victim friendly" rule extends to her.

Websleuths is a fact-based forum. Rumors and gossip are not permitted. When you state something as "fact," you must back it up with a link to an approved source. If you can't link it, you can't post it.

Please do not speculate regarding Corrie's sexual preference. There are no known facts to support the suggestion that he is gay or bi-sexual.

As Admin Bessie stated above, the Find Corrie Facebook page is OFF LIMITS. If you read it on Facebook, leave it on Facebook.

You are free to give as much or as little weight as you choose to the information provided by the family via their website http://www.findcorrie.co.uk. What you cannot do, however, is bash them, attack them, or suggest their involvement in Corrie's disappearance. Unless and until LE states otherwise, they are innocent victims who are desperate to find their loved one.

If you feel certain information provided by the family is questionable or contradictory, then please just limit your discussion to information published in MSM and/or provided by LE. Posts bashing or questioning various family statements are not productive. Please keep discussion focused on the topic of this thread - the disappearance of Corrie McKeague.

All previous mod and admin reminders still stand.

Thank you.

The Rules Forum
Etiquette & Information
The Rules - Social Media

:bump:
 
Is anyone aware of the Rory Hatfield-Johnson missing person case?

They are very similar. He was on CCTV one minute then gone the next, they look alike and so many points of the case are so similar. There is also a Find Rory page called 'Rory Johnson is missing'. Police have said oh he fell into the River but no one is believing this as he was a happy guy and many searches of the river and banks have drawn a blank. Last CCTV shows him running out of a park onto the main road and then soon after he disappears.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38037760?client=safari


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Is this LE saying this Ruth?

I can't multiquote, but Ss you and so many others have put in many hours of great research and practical information here.

All extremely valuable stuff. I am unable to contribute since I only have imo and that isn't enough !

I do want all the contributors here to understand myself (and many other posters I'm sure) appreciate and consider all the arguments for and against that are put forward.

It doesn't fall on deaf ears I can assure you. Please continue to contribute your theories, ideas and possibilities (within TOS of course).







.
Thanks jessie. Tried to respond 3 times but lost reply each time. Will elaborate in a new post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
3,427
Total visitors
3,501

Forum statistics

Threads
604,422
Messages
18,171,818
Members
232,557
Latest member
Velvetshadow
Back
Top