UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #17

[Scorpio1]

Seems the family still thinks he travelled to BM with his phone, either voluntarily or involuntarily, since they are still searching the BM area. I have always thought they should search the path towards Honington concentrating on the eastern side of the search area. Problem with my theory he tried to walk home, is the phone. Why would he lose it this night of all nights? I think the landfill is the most likely place the more I think about it.

that is the same area as the last search last month and sulsar did a few searches in the Same area last year, IMO there can't be much left to search that hasent already been done,

 

[penguinface]

With regards the going back to his car, I think if I was deciding on where to spend my Saturday, I'd probably go with a bustling market town with coffee places, pubs, shops and restaurants over being stuck out on in a dorm room on a military base.

We have no idea when Corrie planned to leave Bury, he may have been expecting to be there until Saturday evening, Sunday morning or Sunday evening, for all we know.

All we know is that he was close to his car when he was kicked out of (sorry, "agreed to leave"...) Flex and chose to go in the opposite direction for food.

 

[YachtClassic007]

Are we looking at the HS area from the wrong perspective ... we are concentrating on who/which vehicles have been seen entering or leaving. We have relied heavily on the police statement that it is not possible to leave the HS without being seen. But we have not concentrated on the fact that the bin area is not covered by CCTV. That is a fact that will be very evident to locals and while we are concentrating on what can be seen, the fact this area can't be seen will be known and used by those that wish to conduct 'business' privately. So while for us 'sleuths' debating cctv etc, there is actually a whole area within the HS that is hidden away from the prying eyes of cctv. I do not believe for one minute that C entered the HS to meet someone. While the police have concentrated on the movement of the phone via pings, they also know EXACTLY what he did or didn't use his phone for. Any calls, messages, internet traffic would have been logged and and that info accessed by the police long ago. So while we ponder did he or didn't he arrange a meet etc the police will know exactly what he accessed on his phone, calls made etc.

That is the reason police have requested info on 'strangers/randoms' ... they have no evidence of any contact via his phone/internet.

And that is why I think this is a wrong place/wrong time event. His evening was normal in that is included his regular visit to the kebab/burger place. He then sits down in a doorway to eat and falls asleep - all on CCTV ... the length of time he is asleep is random ... ie he could have napped for 10 minutes or two hours ... when he woke up ... it was at that point he entered the HS and disappeared into the bin area. If the police have evidence that contact via mobile useage was his reason for entering the HS, we would not have this hunting down of 'unknowns'. they would know exactly who he was meeting. Anyone that doesn't realise all phone useage and internet useage/ip adresses is not stored, is naive.
So that leaves us with an unplanned visit to the bin area ... a wee .. a push bike ??? I am not guessing ... but in that HIDDEN FROM CCTV bin area was someone or some people that were there for the exact reason it was private . and those same people would have known the CCTV system inside out ....

 

[Miss_B]

Are we looking at the HS area from the wrong perspective ... we are concentrating on who/which vehicles have been seen entering or leaving. We have relied heavily on the police statement that it is not possible to leave the HS without being seen. But we have not concentrated on the fact that the bin area is not covered by CCTV. That is a fact that will be very evident to locals and while we are concentrating on what can be seen, the fact this area can't be seen will be known and used by those that wish to conduct 'business' privately. So while for us 'sleuths' debating cctv etc, there is actually a whole area within the HS that is hidden away from the prying eyes of cctv. I do not believe for one minute that C entered the HS to meet someone. While the police have concentrated on the movement of the phone via pings, they also know EXACTLY what he did or didn't use his phone for. Any calls, messages, internet traffic would have been logged and and that info accessed by the police long ago. So while we ponder did he or didn't he arrange a meet etc the police will know exactly what he accessed on his phone, calls made etc.

That is the reason police have requested info on 'strangers/randoms' ... they have no evidence of any contact via his phone/internet.

And that is why I think this is a wrong place/wrong time event. His evening was normal in that is included his regular visit to the kebab/burger place. He then sits down in a doorway to eat and falls asleep - all on CCTV ... the length of time he is asleep is random ... ie he could have napped for 10 minutes or two hours ... when he woke up ... it was at that point he entered the HS and disappeared into the bin area. If the police have evidence that contact via mobile useage was his reason for entering the HS, we would not have this hunting down of 'unknowns'. they would know exactly who he was meeting. Anyone that doesn't realise all phone useage and internet useage/ip adresses is not stored, is naive.
So that leaves us with an unplanned visit to the bin area ... a wee .. a push bike ??? I am not guessing ... but in that HIDDEN FROM CCTV bin area was someone or some people that were there for the exact reason it was private . and those same people would have known the CCTV system inside out ....

Good post - yes locals would definitely know that nothing could be seen in that area...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[YachtClassic007]

Good post - yes locals would definitely know that nothing could be seen in that area...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

and i think that is the point we have been missing ... all hung up on what can be seen when in fact it's the area that can't be seen that is important. info that would be well known by those that want to NOT BE SEEN !

 

[Greater Than]

Hi, what about the Mayor of Bury St Edmunds FB page?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it is the mayor's official FB page (not his/her personal page) and it is relevant to the case, it should be fine.

PM me the link if you're unsure.

Thanks

 

[Shiressleuth]

Are we looking at the HS area from the wrong perspective ...
While the police have concentrated on the movement of the phone via pings, they also know EXACTLY what he did or didn't use his phone for. Any calls, messages, internet traffic would have been logged and and that info accessed by the police long ago. So while we ponder did he or didn't he arrange a meet etc the police will know exactly what he accessed on his phone, calls made etc.

That is the reason police have requested info on 'strangers/randoms' ... they have no evidence of any contact via his phone/internet.

If the police have evidence that contact via mobile useage was his reason for entering the HS, we would not have this hunting down of 'unknowns'. they would know exactly who he was meeting. Anyone that doesn't realise all phone useage and internet useage/ip adresses is not stored, is naive...

RSBM
You seem to be saying the police will know what contact he made and then later appear to say that info isn't stored by the phone/internet which seems to be contradictory. And then use this to suggest a chance meeting. Have I understood incorrectly because I don't quite follow. Do you think the police have full phone details of his usage for that night or not?

 

[Taskforce88]

RSBM
You seem to be saying the police will know what contact he made and then later appear to say that info isn't stored by the phone/internet which seems to be contradictory. And then use this to suggest a chance meeting. Have I understood incorrectly because I don't quite follow. Do you think the police have full phone details of his usage for that night or not?

If I may interject; I would say that they must have. Its not difficult to get phone usage details from the service provider or websites that he was using, is it?

 

[Shiressleuth]

If I may interject; I would say that they must have. Its not difficult to get phone usage details from the service provider or websites that he was using, is it?

I really don't know, which is why I was asking YC007 because s/he seems to think the police would have it. So they would know what contacts he made with his phone that night, if they have that data. AFAIK they aren't even sure now that he had his phone with him in Hughes doorway. Obviously if he didn't have his phone then, it would be a game changer because he would then not have travelled to BM at all.

 

[Shiressleuth]

With regards the going back to his car, I think if I was deciding on where to spend my Saturday, I'd probably go with a bustling market town with coffee places, pubs, shops and restaurants over being stuck out on in a dorm room on a military base.

We have no idea when Corrie planned to leave Bury, he may have been expecting to be there until Saturday evening, Sunday morning or Sunday evening, for all we know.

All we know is that he was close to his car when he was kicked out of (sorry, "agreed to leave"...) Flex and chose to go in the opposite direction for food.

You have made some very valid points. It is only the fact that the phone went to BM that makes it look like C left Bury. He could have left any time over that weekend.

 

[maximcarter]

RSBM
You seem to be saying the police will know what contact he made and then later appear to say that info isn't stored by the phone/internet which seems to be contradictory. And then use this to suggest a chance meeting. Have I understood incorrectly because I don't quite follow. Do you think the police have full phone details of his usage for that night or not?

I think it's just the wording on that part sure they mean you're naive if you think that info is NOT stored.

I believe it's true that it's possible he didn't even have his phone on him anymore the last time he was seen. I'm new here so don't generally know the age of the majority of people so I don't know if it's fair to say we all know how easy it is losing phones/stuff on night outs but everyone I know has at some point.
It could have been picked up by anyone. Another thing is they say the phone drops off around 8am. My guess is wherever it is the battery just ran out. It was what, at least 9 hours since he was out, a long phonecall with his brother.
If he was with the phone and got to BM then I think he would have still been alive at that point. If someone had harmed him why would they leave his phone on tracking signals. Do we know if there was any proof of anyone communicating to him on his phone? I'm starting to think he left the HS alive with his phone and something happened later on. But then of course I remember that it's likely his phone left with the bin lorry and I'm confused again. How concrete was it that the signals at BM were accurate enough to say it was in the bin lorry? I know there was a lot of doubts about it in general and some well presented arguments.

 

[grumpiness]

I think it's just the wording on that part sure they mean you're naive if you think that info is NOT stored.

I believe it's true that it's possible he didn't even have his phone on him anymore the last time he was seen. I'm new here so don't generally know the age of the majority of people so I don't know if it's fair to say we all know how easy it is losing phones/stuff on night outs but everyone I know has at some point.
It could have been picked up by anyone. Another thing is they say the phone drops off around 8am. My guess is wherever it is the battery just ran out. It was what, at least 9 hours since he was out, a long phonecall with his brother.
If he was with the phone and got to BM then I think he would have still been alive at that point. If someone had harmed him why would they leave his phone on tracking signals. Do we know if there was any proof of anyone communicating to him on his phone? I'm starting to think he left the HS alive with his phone and something happened later on. But then of course I remember that it's likely his phone left with the bin lorry and I'm confused again. How concrete was it that the signals at BM were accurate enough to say it was in the bin lorry? I know there was a lot of doubts about it in general and some well presented arguments.

i am a mother of 3 young men.

My eldest age 23 works as a manager in a bar/club, there is always phones found at the end of the night when cleaning up as well as i.d , cash points cards/credit cards you would be surprised.

My second son 19 has now lost 4 phones in 2 years on nights out in town, its got to the point now where he doesn't always even take it.

I think it was quite possible he lost his phone.

http://explore.ee.co.uk/our-company...over-the-last-year-puts-business-data-at-risk - EE estimates that 10million phones, tablets and laptops are lost every year with as many as 1 in 5 losing theirs on a night out , or leaving it in a club or a taxi

Also on the subject of body being found at landfill. Can I just say that maybe SP are looking for body parts that have been disposed of in other bins maybe. Just a thought.

 

[Justlookingme]

When this first came up many thread ago there were links to the law on this and the keys in the ignition is an urban myth, you can still be charged just for being in the car.

No idea if this is actually enforced but it could be, but as I said above I think it's irrelevant here, C wasn't spending the evening thinking about which laws he might be breaking IMO, he was a normal young lad having a few too many on a night out, it doesn't work to apply sober middle aged thinking (no offence to the younger posters)

I'm sure it all depends on circumstance.
One lad at work was drunk about 5 years ago, he got caught sleeping in his car, the keys weren't in the ignition but the engine was still warm and he got charged for being drunk in control of a vehicle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[studrochan]

If he got a lift part way, he could have taken a different route towards Honington and accidentally left the phone in the vehicle which then traveled on to Barton Mills/Mildenhall.

I think this is still my favourite hypothesis (of many).

and i think that is the point we have been missing ... all hung up on what can be seen when in fact it's the area that can't be seen that is important. info that would be well known by those that want to NOT BE SEEN !

I'm not overly convinced. At least one CCTV camera overlooked the HS, but we know now that it didn't work. Would anyone have known that at the time? And the HS is very central in Bury, with pedestrians (and vehicles, of course) liable to interrupt any nefarious activities at any moment.

If I may interject; I would say that they must have. Its not difficult to get phone usage details from the service provider or websites that he was using, is it?

I would say it is, because of the strict data protection laws in this country. The police may have a case for obtaining details relating to the movement of Corrie's phone, but I think they would be far less likely to get details related to other phones, because of the law.

 

[Ellmau]

I'm sure it all depends on circumstance.
One lad at work was drunk about 5 years ago, he got caught sleeping in his car, the keys weren't in the ignition but the engine was still warm and he got charged for being drunk in control of a vehicle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, definitely the case. Recently someone parked in our work car park to sleep it off, and the police came and took her away in handcuffs after she wouldn't do the breathalyser properly. They came and collected the car too.

 

[YachtClassic007]

Yes as TaskForce88 said, it is not a question of whether they do or don't have the phone data. 100% they do. It is very easy to obtain, very easy to understand and very detailed. They will know whether he made calls, messages or internet access.
There was a photo message sent; if you look back they didn't ask for info on who received it, they knew he sent it and to who. What didn't tie in was that the CCTV evidence didn't show him using his phone at the time it was sent. The police have assumed that the picture was sent once a decent signal was available, which is how phones work.
I have just re-read my supposed contradictory statement and yepp, bad English, i used two negatives in one statement.
It meant that all phone data is stored by the network provider and easily accessed by the police.
It does raise the question of whether he did have his phone in the Hughes doorway ... it does raise the question of maybe it wasn't him that sent the photo (strangely it was one of a previous night out) .. but prefer to stick to the facts .. and the facts are
The police know all his phone/internet useage ...

I really don't know, which is why I was asking YC007 because s/he seems to think the police would have it. So they would know what contacts he made with his phone that night, if they have that data. AFAIK they aren't even sure now that he had his phone with him in Hughes doorway. Obviously if he didn't have his phone then, it would be a game changer because he would then not have travelled to BM at all.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Yes, definitely the case. Recently someone parked in our work car park to sleep it off, and the police came and took her away in handcuffs after she wouldn't do the breathalyser properly. They came and collected the car too.

Absolutely unbelievable. Glad to see the police catching real criminals like her .

Back to phone. Surely the minimum data the police will have from the provider via Nicola the owner would be a call and text log so they would know when it was last used. Even just an itemized bill would show that and Nicola would obviously have access easily to that data.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Yes as TaskForce88 said, it is not a question of whether they do or don't have the phone data. 100% they do. It is very easy to obtain, very easy to understand and very detailed. They will know whether he made calls, messages or internet access.
There was a photo message sent; if you look back they didn't ask for info on who received it, they knew he sent it and to who. What didn't tie in was that the CCTV evidence didn't show him using his phone at the time it was sent. The police have assumed that the picture was sent once a decent signal was available, which is how phones work.
I have just re-read my supposed contradictory statement and yepp, bad English, i used two negatives in one statement.
It meant that all phone data is stored by the network provider and easily accessed by the police.
It does raise the question of whether he did have his phone in the Hughes doorway ... it does raise the question of maybe it wasn't him that sent the photo (strangely it was one of a previous night out) .. but prefer to stick to the facts .. and the facts are
The police know all his phone/internet useage ...

Yc, Do you have a link for the facts in your last sentence as I have not seen that stated anywhere? We have to support facts with links. If we can't link it we can't post it. Cheers.

 

[YachtClassic007]

Also any internet access ... so the police have known all along whether he made any contact with anyone after he woke in the doorway .. apart from the picture message that was sent (but not by C at that time as the CCTV shows him not using his phone) ..

 

[Shiressleuth]

Yc, Do you have a link for the facts in your last sentence as I have not seen that stated anywhere? We have to support facts with links. If we can't link it we can't post it. Cheers.

Also will need a link for the below post too. Ta.

Also any internet access ... so the police have known all along whether he made any contact with anyone after he woke in the doorway .. apart from the picture message that was sent (but not by C at that time as the CCTV shows him not using his phone) ..