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

[JamesKing]

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

I bet they "might know".

And I bet there "might be" a suspect.

And I bet it is a "Homicide without a body" case.

And I bet they will not move without credible evidence.
Hence the family is quiet. The police have increased activity. And they need forensics (so a body at least) to start any case.

But "motive" ?

 

[Ironside]

I do strongly believe Corrie left that area in a vehicle, his uncle has been methodical in explaining how it is impossible for him to have left on foot unseen.

I think the police can't come out and say he left in a vehicle yet as they have no "solid" proof he left in a vehicle, it's just a very logical theory. They can't use it as a fact in a statement.

Police can't release theories as they could damage a future court case.

 

[Dcflag]

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

See I don't think any vehicles have been discounted. They just aren't being reported back. The amount of vehicles reported in the area doesn't necessarily mean they're the only cars in the area.

I would assume the radio silence on the car front means it's the most likely scenario and one they're following up with whether that's a car were aware of or not.

To confirm he didn't walk past cctv means just that, nothing else.

 

[JamesKing]

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?

You're assuming he walked far ?

I never said that.

 

[suzyjackson]

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.

BBM - I find it difficult to accept that they haven't had time to view all the footage of the horseshoe area. If they didn't do that first that would indicate to m ethat they aren't doing it properly

JMO

 

[suzyjackson]

I bet they "might know".

And I bet there "might be" a suspect.

And I bet it is a "Homicide without a body" case.

And I bet they will not move without credible evidence.
Hence the family is quiet. The police have increased activity. And they need forensics (so a body at least) to start any case.

But "motive" ?

Motive, I have no clue but I'm still open on the tragic accident and cover up possibilty

 

[JamesKing]

I do strongly believe Corrie left that area in a vehicle, his uncle has been methodical in explaining how it is impossible for him to have left on foot unseen.

I think the police can't come out and say he left in a vehicle yet as they have no "solid" proof he left in a vehicle, it's just a very logical theory. They can't use it as a fact in a statement.

Police can't release theories as they could damage a future court case.

The point is (and I agree he likely left in a car) that the implication is that the cameras saw everything....and they didn't.

But Corrie either left in a car (in my view) from
1. Short Brackland down the road.
2. From the loading bay area.
3. From the corner of the doorway, once he had returned to that place, possibly in the Silver Car OR another vehicle.

All would be "unseen".

 

[Dcflag]

I bet they "might know".

And I bet there "might be" a suspect.

And I bet it is a "Homicide without a body" case.

And I bet they will not move without credible evidence.
Hence the family is quiet. The police have increased activity. And they need forensics (so a body at least) to start any case.

But "motive" ?

I agree. I'm glad some people see things a little more clearly on here.

Until confirmed you can't discount anything relating to vehicles. I'd be interested to know if the hooded person was identified and spoken to.

As for motives, who knows? People have very strange motives for things. To commit such crimes must make your thinking illogical to others. It could be anything from premeditated (not targeted as such, just an intention to harm someone) an accident, drink fuelled or discriminatory crime (so for example the random goings on about spurned sexual advances) or could be completely random wrong place wrong time.

 

[JamesKing]

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.

Huge contradictions in what has been said....
....and I can not blame them one bit. That's the thing.

Key to the families combined statements are/is....

They assume (and probably likely) Corrie left in a car.
From where... there are really only two spots.
And the possibility he went "willingly".

Think about the "last point" carefully.

 

[Deleted member 178385]

I'd be interested to know if the hooded person was identified and spoken to.

Going by the chat on the FB group yesterday, the hooded person was one of a number of people - and vehicles - who were in the area that night, shown in a reel in the hub. Just people the police were trying to get in contact with.

And the hub was only there for two weekends, quite early on (so early October-ish, I think).

 

[Dcflag]

You're assuming he walked far ?

I never said that.

Not assuming. Just that to many people to take it on face value that Tony's confirmation means he didn't leave that area on foot with the assumption he means completely. I agree with you the possibilty he walked into the immediate area unseen. There are many people back to believing he went in the bin lorry, probably because of the confirmation of him not leaving on foot coupled with lack of info regarding other vehicles.

 

[Dcflag]

Huge contradictions in what has been said....
....and I can not blame them one bit. That's the thing.

Key to the families combined statements are/is....

They assume (and probably likely) Corrie left in a car.
From where... there are really only two spots.
And the possibility he went "willingly".

Think about the "last point" carefully.

I think you're bang on, providing there's no huge vehicle shaped bombshells hidden in that cctv.

Which takes us right back to the beginning really! It can't be that difficulty to work out routes where the cars would either not be on cctv or where they would hit cctv and search them for clearer photos of the cars.

The new searching in the opposite direction to Barton mills suggests they know one of these vehicles in the are area went that direction.

 

[MidsummersDay]

 

[JamesKing]

I agree. I'm glad some people see things a little more clearly on here.

Until confirmed you can't discount anything relating to vehicles. I'd be interested to know if the hooded person was identified and spoken to.

As for motives, who knows? People have very strange motives for things. To commit such crimes must make your thinking illogical to others. It could be anything from premeditated (not targeted as such, just an intention to harm someone) an accident, drink fuelled or discriminatory crime (so for example the random goings on about spurned sexual advances) or could be completely random wrong place wrong time.

Completely agree.

And particularly in your last paragraph.
Why things happen, I haven't a clue at all.

I will "throw in" one thing. Often mentioned is, was he waiting ?

I don't mean this in a horrible way at all, but it is likely that Corrie has been murdered (or "taken" and then murdered).

He would not have known that, that night.

Does he need to hide between 1.20 and 3.24 ?
Absolutely NOT.
Where he is, maybe "where he needed to be".

I don't know if the likely murderer did, because I don't know if it was "pre planned", "on the spur of the moment" or "an accident".

 

[c4nd1_83]

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.

Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JamesKing]

I think you're bang on, providing there's no huge vehicle shaped bombshells hidden in that cctv.

Which takes us right back to the beginning really! It can't be that difficulty to work out routes where the cars would either not be on cctv or where they would hit cctv and search them for clearer photos of the cars.

The new searching in the opposite direction to Barton mills suggests they know one of these vehicles in the are area went that direction.

I've done that also.... and it's a major problem !

The Silver Car cannot be seen by Cam09

BUT... it should be seen (at least partially) by cameras on The Bushel Pub AND on Ipswich Road (near the roundabout) AND from Station Approach near the roundabout.

It depends IF all cameras were pointing that way at the time. That's the BIG if. Missing FIVE cameras seems odd to me.

That's the route the Silver Car (as yet unaccounted for) should have taken.

He may of course left by Short Brackland.

 

[Dcflag]

I think he must have been waiting if he got into the silver car? If he got into a car on short brackland then it's anyone's guess as to whether it was a planned pick up or accidental.

Whatever did happen in either instances his phone must have been left or binned for it to have ended up in that lorry (assuming it was if the current tests can prove that) either he binned it, dropped it, forgot it or it was taken and binned while he was in that alleyway. The last option wouldn't suggest he went anywhere willingly.

 

[Dcflag]

I've done that also.... and it's a major problem !

The Silver Car cannot be seen by Cam09

BUT... it should be seen (at least partially) by cameras on The Bushel Pub AND on Ipswich Road (near the roundabout) AND from Station Approach.

It depends IF all cameras were point that way at the time. That's the BIG if.

That's the route the Silver Car (as yet unaccounted for) should have taken.

He may of course left by Short Brackland.

Surely by laws of probability it must have been seen by one of the three? To miss every camera is beyond luck!

In terms of short brackland would there be possibilities of vehicles caught on cctv at any point on the road or any roads connected to it? I assume there is if he couldn't have walked unseen.

 

[JamesKing]

Pretty much THAT view. Cheers Midsummer.

And it's on "Auto Sweep" !

And look how those two people are to being completely out of view.

Imagine, you have never been there for a pee....and then you find a spot...you wouldn't "walk around" afterwards, you'd head straigh back. You'd be out of sight in seconds.

 

[c4nd1_83]

If he was taken for a night of passion lets say, that he had pre arranged to meet this person (hence the waiting), then either this person is very lucky to have evaded any trace or this was cleverly planned with the person knowing they were going to do something to corrie. A huge risk for the person who had taken him but recently a gay man has been convicted of date rapping his victims and dumping their body's in the street. The lunatic got away with it for a while.

Corrie had to be waiting for someone. Someone to pick him up from that area.

Still doesn't give reason to the phone going where it did.

Arrggghhhh so confusing....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk