UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #3

[suzyjackson]

The thing is, no one can cut this "both ways".

Either,

#1 Corrie was completely unseen leaving the loading bay area by both Cam09 and Cam34

or

#2 At least one camera was trained on that area and his method of departure can be assumed/partially seen.

Tony replied to me saying, my query was based on one camera. And that is not so.

If Corrie "vanished", it assumes that a camera was pointed on that area all the time. So Cam09 and/or Cam34

If Corrie left that area (and searches seem to indicate that) then those same cameras, at some point, weren't focused on that area.

The third option is, he remained in that area (way after his phone left that place)....and was "unnoticed" leaving "several hours later".

I have no idea why the police or the family can confirm this ?

Whether he knows it by camera or some other way Uncle Tony does seem to be adamant that Corrie did not leave on foot.

Have you considered whether there are private cameras that might have provided him with that certainty, I'm right in thinking that 09 and 34 are publically run cameras.aren't !? There could be an operational reasons for being vague about private CCTV.

It would be a great help if someone local could have a look

 

[c4nd1_83]

Lets say he got mugged. The phone went in the bin. He suffered some kind of injury from the mugging.
Muggers don't normally take their victim in a car. He would have been left there for someone else to find him.

So we can rule out mugging.

I still get taken back to the bin lorry every single time. The only possible way him and his phone went out of there unnoticed.

Or he went up into a flat, something unfolded pretty quick. His phone was thrown in the bin before the bin lorry arrived and later someone took him out of there (3 day window).

Or he went out the same time as the bin lorry, in another vehicle that followed the same route as the bin lorry.

Or the bin lorry driver found his phone. Took it. Realised it wasnt a great idea and got rid of it later when the battery ran out and he couldn't charge it or turn it on. It would be to late in the day now to admit that.

From photos of Corrie it always appears his pockets are fully loaded with wallet, keys, phone, *advertiser censored*. Back pockets looked like they had his personal belongings in from the cctv. Could his phone have fallen out.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dcflag]

I personally think the answer to this is simple. He left in a vehicle of which they must have a small shortlist of possible vehicles. The information isn't being released purely because they are trying to track these vehicles hence why there are now specific search places popping up. Perhaps they are searching cctv in areas where the car could have travelled to track its route.

To say he vanished is misleading. If you can see the exit/entrance to that alleyway at all times on cctv then you see him leave.

Even if you can't see the alleyway at all times the cctv in all connecting roads at some point will show entering/exiting vehicles. The police are sitting on a lot more info and I think the hooded man proves that.

In the original quote that fought the hooded man to light we're people also not shown vehicles on cctv?

 

[martinwatts5]

I personally think the answer to this is simple. He left in a vehicle of which they must have a small shortlist of possible vehicles. The information isn't being released purely because they are trying to track these vehicles hence why there are now specific search places popping up. Perhaps they are searching cctv in areas where the car could have travelled to track its route.
To say he vanished is misleading. If you can see the exit/entrance to that alleyway at all times on cctv then you see him leave.

Even if you can't see the alleyway at all times the cctv in all connecting roads at some point will show entering/exiting vehicles. The police are sitting on a lot more info and I think the hooded man proves that.

In the original quote that fought the hooded man to light we're people also not shown vehicles on cctv?

I agree with you - they are admitting that tracing vehicles is ongoing

 

[JamesKing]

Whether he knows it by camera or some other way Uncle Tony does seem to be adamant that Corrie did not leave on foot.

Have you considered whether there are private cameras that might have provided him with that certainty, I'm right in thinking that 09 and 34 are publically run cameras.aren't !? There could be an operational reasons for being vague about private CCTV.

It would be a great help if someone local could have a look

Yes, those cameras are "govt run".
And it seems (later on) there was private CCTV recovered by Tony ....much later on.

Tony IS adamant Corrie did not leave on foot....and this evidence is said to come from (and this is directly from Tony) he was not seen on CCTV.

But you can calculate the possibilities of what CCTV can see and can't see.
It has to be accepted that the CCTV has "black spots".

And that is the curious thing. Tony doesn't accept that (in his reply).

Example. If you said "he could not leave that area unseen" then you have to accept "a car leaving should be seen" ? It stands to reason ?

 

[Dcflag]

Remember they have confirmed (apparently) there's no trace of Corrie in the alley or buildings. They have not confirmed the bin lorry was the only vehicle in that area on the cctv. People are only assuming it is because nothing else has been mentioned. Until it is confirmed it's the only vehicle on that camera in that area you can only speculate if it really was.

 

[Dcflag]

Yes, those cameras are "govt run".
And it seems (later on) there was private CCTV recovered by Tony ....much later on.

Tony IS adamant Corrie did not leave on foot....and this evidence is said to come from (and this is directly from Tony) he was not seen on CCTV.

But you can calculate the possibilities of what CCTV can see and can't see.
It has to be accepted that the CCTV has "black spots".

And that is the curious thing. Tony doesn't accept that (in his reply).

Example. If you said "he could not leave that area unseen" then you have to accept "a car leaving should be seen" ? It stands to reason ?

Exactly this. If they are adamant he did not leave on foot then there must be vehicle possibilties that have not been talked about.

The fact that someone left that area on foot and it's only been mentioned from hub viewings leaves it wide open to speculation that a vehicle could also have been left out of confirmed events.

 

[JamesKing]

I personally think the answer to this is simple. He left in a vehicle of which they must have a small shortlist of possible vehicles. The information isn't being released purely because they are trying to track these vehicles hence why there are now specific search places popping up. Perhaps they are searching cctv in areas where the car could have travelled to track its route.

To say he vanished is misleading. If you can see the exit/entrance to that alleyway at all times on cctv then you see him leave.

Even if you can't see the alleyway at all times the cctv in all connecting roads at some point will show entering/exiting vehicles. The police are sitting on a lot more info and I think the hooded man proves that.

In the original quote that fought the hooded man to light we're people also not shown vehicles on cctv?

Yeh, I get that.....

....and so this isn't a Missing Persons enquiry at all.

You see, if "black zones" are known (and they are there) Corrie indeed "could have left" unseen. It is not beyond possibility.

The statement then "he could not leave unseen" is inaccurate.

So, if this is a murder enquiry, then why isn't that stated ?
The police opened this as a "Missing Persons" not "Homicide Without A Body" (infact it was changed to that later on, the changed again....then with the MET and MIT involved, it has become that again).

 

[JamesKing]

Exactly this. If they are adamant he did not leave on foot then there must be vehicle possibilties that have not been talked about.

The fact that someone left that area on foot and it's only been mentioned from hub viewings leaves it wide open to speculation that a vehicle could also have been left out of confirmed events.

...is what I have been banging on about !

You can't say "he didn't leave on foot, because he is unseen walking away" because that means "you know he left by other means".

Otherwise you say, there are "black zones in the cctv coverage".

 

[Dcflag]

I'd assume it can only be down to evidence they have currently. I don't think it's a missing persons case in a traditional sense. It stands to reason that vehicle access is cctv monitored from further back (so for example cars seen on a specific road that could access near the alleyway are all possibilities) if the car left bse it must be picked up somewhere else on route.

If there is no sign he left that alleyway on cctv through foot or vehicle then I'd accept he "vanished" but I think it shows that we don't have all the information needed to make any kind of call. Until information is confirmed you don't know one way or the other. The bin lorry is confirmed, that doesn't mean it's the only confirmed activity.

While I can accept there are black spots, I cannot accept that you can get to and from the alleyway out of bse unseen. You could perhaps leave the alleyway unseen to short brackland, but from there any access must be visible.

I still think people are forgetting that without confirmation you cannot say one way or the other what they have.

To accept Tonys statement that he was not seen leaving on foot therefore discounting the possibilty this does not discount you can see him leaving by vehicle. If you can ascertain the possibility of one as zero then you can discount the possibilty of the other as zero. They haven't yet, so leaving in a vehicle is the only option left.

If this is the case then they must have vehicles exiting that area.

 

[JamesKing]

You see, it also come down to "why recruit 60K people on facebook", because you would know if there were black spots in CCTV or not.

If there are (and I believe there are from research), then you could say Corrie walked out unseen.
At which point you would not be "adamant" about him not walking out unseen

But still Corrie is missing. So where did he go ?

He could have left from Short Brackland in a car.

Or he could have walked back to Brentgrovel Street and got into that "Silver Car" that was and is outstanding althouh it was parked a mere 60 foot away from the camera (Cam09).

 

[Dcflag]

I really think at some point it will come to light the rest of the timeline of events. There's no way that from the time he turned into the alleyway until the time the bin lorry arrived there was no activity in those streets. People were leaving work, finishing their nights out, it's a residential area, plus clearly there was a man in the alleyway and the elusive car driving the wrong way 🤔

 

[suzyjackson]

Yes, those cameras are "govt run".
And it seems (later on) there was private CCTV recovered by Tony ....much later on.

Tony IS adamant Corrie did not leave on foot....and this evidence is said to come from (and this is directly from Tony) he was not seen on CCTV.

But you can calculate the possibilities of what CCTV can see and can't see.
It has to be accepted that the CCTV has "black spots".

And that is the curious thing. Tony doesn't accept that (in his reply).

Example. If you said "he could not leave that area unseen" then you have to accept "a car leaving should be seen" ? It stands to reason ?

ITA, I'm not nearly as good as working out the CCTV angles but common sense must say that if you can't miss a person walking that you also can't miss a car unless there is somewhere that a car can go that a person can't but I don't think this applies here.

 

[JamesKing]

@Dcflag

And you have hit the nail on the head....

Quote you "I cannot accept that you can get to and from the alleyway out of bse unseen". Unquote.

How far is he going ?

Cam09 could not see the make. model or reg number of the Silver Car. That was said to be "unidentified" by the family.

And Cam34 didn't see the time it departed.

That proves there was not complete camera coverage.

 

[Dcflag]

The thing is, no one can cut this "both ways".

Either,

#1 Corrie was completely unseen leaving the loading bay area by both Cam09 and Cam34

or

#2 At least one camera was trained on that area and his method of departure can be assumed/partially seen.

Tony replied to me saying, my query was based on one camera. And that is not so.

If Corrie "vanished", it assumes that a camera was pointed on that area all the time. So Cam09 and/or Cam34

If Corrie left that area (and searches seem to indicate that) then those same cameras, at some point, weren't focused on that area.

The third option is, he remained in that area (way after his phone left that place)....and was "unnoticed" leaving "several hours later".

I have no idea why the police or the family can confirm this ?

I missed this! This is my point also.

Tony confirmed he wasn't seen leaving on foot. If you can confirm that you can also (assuming the cameras show the road as well as the pavements) confirm either he wasn't seen leaving in a vehicle (because there was none on cctv) or he was seen leaving in a suspected amount of vehicles.

 

[suzyjackson]

You see, it also come down to "why recruit 60K people on facebook", because you would know if there were black spots in CCTV or not.

If there are (and I believe there are from research), then you could say Corrie walked out unseen.
At which point you would not be "adamant" about him not walking out unseen

But still Corrie is missing. So where did he go ?

He could have left from Short Brackland in a car.

Or he could have walked back to Brentgrovel Street and got into that "Silver Car" that was and is outstanding althouh it was parked a mere 60 foot away from the camera (Cam09).

I bet they do know the identity of the silver car but for some reason aren't making it public. I don't recall any recent requests for info on it, I think it's probably been discounted and they are just protecting the identity of the driver which is understandable

 

[JamesKing]

ITA, I'm not nearly as good as working out the CCTV angles but common sense must say that if you can't miss a person walking that you also can't miss a car unless there is somewhere that a car can go that a person can't but I don't think this applies here.

I'll prove it to you.....

1. It was said they were trying to identify the Silver Car ?
So Cam09 (60 foot away) could not see its make, model or reg ?

2. The last footage. How far is Corrie down the alleyway before you see his head ?
Then measure the alleyway ?
He is at least 120 foot away from Cam09 on Greenwoods.

Cam09 is designed for "max coverage". That all the way past the shopping centre....and on its sweeps, all the way down the roads.
NOT the alleyway !

 

[suzyjackson]

I missed this! This is my point also.

Tony confirmed he wasn't seen leaving on foot. If you can confirm that you can also (assuming the cameras show the road as well as the pavements) confirm either he wasn't seen leaving in a vehicle (because there was none on cctv) or he was seen leaving in a suspected amount of vehicles.

Logically that would be true but for some reason he's actively choosing not to confirm anything about a vehicle so I think we could safely assume that this is for operational reasons and is one of things that have been referred that he can't talk about

 

[Dcflag]

@Dcflag

And you have hit the nail on the head....

Quote you "I cannot accept that you can get to and from the alleyway out of bse unseen". Unquote.

How far is he going ?

Cam09 could not see the make. model or reg number of the Silver Car. That was said to be "unidentified" by the family.

And Cam34 didn't see the time it departed.

That proves there was not complete camera coverage.

It does, but you could argue that because there is a possibilty he got into the vehicle and you cannot pinpoint the time it left that it is a suspected car. Surely it would be caught on other cctv in bse? Whether there is a black spot in this instance is irrelevant because surely they could gauge a good likelihood of similar cars caught on cctv in the area/around the time.

If he walked out of the alleyway unseen, at some point a car he was in would be seen on cctv surely? I'm not overly local to the area but I'd assume if you were to drive out of any of those exit routes you would be picked up as leaving somewhere along the line.

Perhaps tony is confirming he didn't walk out of bse, not that he didn't walk from that alleyway?

 

[Deleted member 178385]

Playing catch up with the most recent comments, so forgive me if I've missed something vital ...

As far as I'm aware, Tony is adamant that Corrie left in a vehicle because the combination of public and private CCTV (that the family sourced - not he police) did not show him leave on foot but DID show vehicles in that area during the time in question. From the radio podcast he did a while back:

"But really the options are limited because from the CCTV evidence, I think it's either two or three vehicles that passed through that way in the time window that we're concerned with. So, there's not a huge amount of option here. There's a bin lorry and another vehicle that was unaccounted for - and remains unaccounted for - and one of which now, we can't confirm this yet, but we've got credible information that a car passed the wrong way up the one way street there. But we've got an outstanding vehicle, at least one at the moment."

Having said that, Tony did say on FB that he couldn't completely rule out exit on foot (although he deems is practically impossible):

"Physical tests have been carried out to determine what is possible and not possible. As a result of those tests it has been assessed that he could not have left on foot without being picked up by one of the cameras.

Can we say it was forensically impossible - no. But he would have had to have replicated a travel pattern similar to Kennedy's magic bullet, with the added complexity of temporal alignment to have done it. Discounted."

It may be that the police still haven't reviewed that CCTV yet (Nicola did say recently that they are still working through the quoted 1100 hours of footage). It may also be that the police accept he got in a vehicle then or at some other point, but willingly. I think there has to be a bit more to it before they can move from missing person to homicide - there's no evidence of criminality, no motive or means for a murder (as far as we know) for a start.