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

[PurpleWitch]

Because he had an accident with his previous convertible a while back and maybe wanted to upgrade and traded in.

 

[PurpleWitch]

Double post sorry

 

[soundssuspicious]

Look at my superimposed images of the bin area. Note he correctly sized bin lorry and how it masks the vision of the CCTV allowing undetected egress in car or on foot from the area.This would be possible when the bin lorry arrived, during its turning phase, during its lifting phase and during its leaving phase. I would estimate a 10-15 minute window.

so it's more than possible that if the bin lorry was parked obscuring the camera for 15/20 minutes, Corrie could have walked out the ARE on foot without being captured on CCTV - yes?

And as he entered the area approximately 30 minutes before the bin lorry entered, that would be the average time it takes a for a secret rendezvous of some kind - whether behind the bins or in a flat?

Then it's also possible that Corrie got in a car further down - or came out in a car whilst the lorry was parked there - thus why he wasn't picked up on camera.

is that right?

 

[BookCollector]

so it's more than possible that if the bin lorry was parked obscuring the camera for 15/20 minutes, Corrie could have walked out the ARE on foot without being captured on CCTV - yes?

?

Do you think the bin lorry would have stayed in the alley that long though, just to dump one bin?

 

[soundssuspicious]

I still think that regardless of the blind spots in the immediate area one of the cameras in the surrounding areas will have picked up Corrie leaving, in a vehicle. Whether in a seat or the boot.

I see someone mentioned the possibilty of short brackland being used unseen because of the nature of the road (used for lorry types) so how can they say he didn't leave a short way on foot.

Tony is bloody clever in his wording and plays on people's automatic assumptions. He wasn't seen leaving on foot, that doesn't mean he didn't. If you could categorically rule out on foot through cctv you could also rule on or out in a vehicle.

I'm very much in the camp that there are several suspicious events caught on cctv that they are sitting on because it's not relevant for public to know. Without the Facebook page we would know even less, it's a missing persons case with appeals for witnesses and car drivers, nothing more.

Card sale are being kept very close and probably for very good reason. As someone else said earlier, when the details emerge I imagine it was be a very simple and very obvious sad set of circumstances that have lead to his disappearance (and sadly in my opinion his death but I'm very very open to hope this isn't the case)

Whats hard to understand about Tony's quote when he said "Corrie didn't leave on foot"?

Thats plain English.

it means he must have left in a vehicle or left whilst hidden by an object.

 

[Deleted member 178385]

Whats hard to understand about Tony's quote when he said "Corrie didn't leave on foot"?

Thats plain English.

it means he must have left in a vehicle or left whilst hidden by an object.

Tony also said:

"​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. "

Which suggests an element of doubt - however small.

 

[Dcflag]

Tony also said:

"​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. "

Which suggests an element of doubt - however small.

For example he could have left when the cameras were obscured.

 

[Deleted member 178385]

For example he could have left when the cameras were obscured.

Yes - perhaps on foot! My point was the contradiction in Tony's definitive 'Corrie didn't leave on foot' statement, while also saying "Can we say it was forensically impossible - no."

 

[Dcflag]

"– Analysis of the cctv evidence allows us to also discount Option 2, for the time window being reviewed. Corrie did not leave on foot." from the most recent update. Interesting how it says "for the time window being reviewed"

 

[soundssuspicious]

I still think that regardless of the blind spots in the immediate area one of the cameras in the surrounding areas will have picked up Corrie leaving, in a vehicle. Whether in a seat or the boot.

I see someone mentioned the possibilty of short brackland being used unseen because of the nature of the road (used for lorry types) so how can they say he didn't leave a short way on foot.

Tony is bloody clever in his wording and plays on people's automatic assumptions. He wasn't seen leaving on foot, that doesn't mean he didn't. If you could categorically rule out on foot through cctv you could also rule on or out in a vehicle.

I'm very much in the camp that there are several suspicious events caught on cctv that they are sitting on because it's not relevant for public to know. Without the Facebook page we would know even less, it's a missing persons case with appeals for witnesses and car drivers, nothing more.

Card sale are being kept very close and probably for very good reason. As someone else said earlier, when the details emerge I imagine it was be a very simple and very obvious sad set of circumstances that have lead to his disappearance (and sadly in my opinion his death but I'm very very open to hope this isn't the case)

sorry to quote you again, but how on earth could Corrie be picked up by CCTV if he was in the boot of a car?

Also, why is everyone focusing on cars...he may have left in a van.

At at the beginning of the investigation they wondered if he'd ridden off on a bicycle!

 

[Deleted member 178385]

"– Analysis of the cctv evidence allows us to also discount Option 2, for the time window being reviewed. Corrie did not leave on foot." from the most recent update. Interesting how it says "for the time window being reviewed"

It is very interesting. Also interesting that the police have never issued an update to confirm the family's findings. It's almost like there are two investigations: the family one and the police one.

 

[soundssuspicious]

He didn't say he wasn't seen leaving on foot though, he said if he left on foot he would have been seen. 2 very different things if you think about it.

Exactly the same meaning.

 

[Dcflag]

I see them occasionally in Bury too.We have USAF service personal live near me who rent private houses preferring to live off base instead of on base.

sorry to quote you again, but how on earth could Corrie be picked up by CCTV if he was in the boot of a car?

Also, why is everyone focusing on cars...he may have left in a van.

At at the beginning of the investigation they wondered if he'd ridden off on a bicycle!

I just mean that his exiting that area would be on cctv even if he isn't visible. So if three vehicles are shown leaving that area and he's in one of them he's shown leaving regardless of whether you knew he was there, if that makes sense!

As for using the word car I assume it's easier than vehicle, from what we do know vaguely about vehicle movements it seems there were a few cars moving about in the area.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

"– Analysis of the cctv evidence allows us to also discount Option 2, for the time window being reviewed. Corrie did not leave on foot." from the most recent update. Interesting how it says "for the time window being reviewed"

It suggests that the Police have facts that mean they know there is nothing outside this window that is relevant to the case and they are not even sharing the reasons why with the family?

The camera tests that Tony talks about- Are they Police conducted tests or something he himself with his background/contacts has done?

 

[Dcflag]

It suggests that the Police have facts that mean they know there is nothing outside this window that is relevant to the case and they are not even sharing the reasons why with the family?

The camera tests that Tony talks about- Are they Police conducted tests or something he himself with his background/contacts has done?

I agree, the time window up to 8am suggests they got what they needed in the cctv they viewed. In the same update it says him staying until he area was ruled out, so they must know how he exited.

 

[Dcflag]

Whats hard to understand about Tony's quote when he said "Corrie didn't leave on foot"?

Thats plain English.

it means he must have left in a vehicle or left whilst hidden by an object.

You'd be surprised 😂

 

[soundssuspicious]

I think it may have been me who originally started this one. It was my view, IIRC, that if Corrie had arranged a gay hook-up that it would have been with someone pretty local and that they would have gone back to that person's place. Even if that person could not take Corrie home for whatever reason, it was always much more likely to me that they would have driven out of BSE into the surrounding countryside, to one of the quiet back roads a couple of miles out. There was no need, in this scenario, for them to go as far as Barton Mills, some 11 miles away.

The only reason, I think, for the gay dogging thing to come up was the fact that there is a gay cruising and hook-up spot in the area his phone was tracked to. However, I said much earlier in this discussion that I didn't see why they would go there since an existing hook-up basically meant they didn't need to. Anywhere quiet and dark would have done.

Good point....but then we're back to the phone being at Barton.

 

[BookCollector]

Not to be sordid, but the term dogging entails watching others as well. It adds to the sexual thrill - that's the whole point.

I'm not saying any of this happened, but if he did have a gay encounter, it's perfectly logical that the pair could go to the dogging site instead of off on their own.

 

[JamesKing]

Tony also said:

"​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. "

Which suggests an element of doubt - however small.

Yep, everything is being cleverly worded to allow for contradictions.
However his implication is.... what the hell is he implying !

The statement "he could not have left on foot without being picked up by one of the cameras" is saying what ?

# because we saw a car leave ?
# because at no time did anything or anyone go in or out ?

Very, very confusing. I just can't figure out if it being done on purpose or by accident ?



(And of course, the caveat "Can we say it was forensically impossible - no).

 

[JamesKing]

So... where we are is....

"It is impossible for Corrie to have left the area without being seen by the cameras BUT it's not impossible that Corrie left the area unseen by the cameras".

Yarda, yarda, yarda, yawn !