UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #6

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the second running man I think?
51d5278338b58cc738122d288cae57d1.jpg


It's like the same camera which captures the first running man and the person in the shadows then pans round to capture the 2nd running man but I can't actually tell if the 2 things happen consecutively. Any ideas?

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

No.. the second running man is coming the other way (see Ashbeck's post above #21).
 
No.. the second running man is coming the other way (see Ashbeck's post above #21).

This is the second running man in that the first one happened first from what I gather the first man runs down the street and during that cctv you see someone coming from the horseshoe and "hiding" and then when this man runs up the street there the lurker by the light. If the first was just after Corrie (so say 3.30am) and this was around 3.40am it most likely is the same person you'd think.
 
If we have running man 1 running back toward Hughes from McD's, and running man 2 running from Hughes (directionally) to McD's, could they be the same person running both ways?

Say someone got to their pick-up after a night out and realised they'd dropped/forgotten something, then they might run through that pedestrianized area to go back for their lost item, and then run back to the car because they have someone waiting for them?

Unless they both look completely different people in the pod footage, which would rule that out. It just seems to give us a totally innocent/normal explanation for someone running past that camera twice in a 15 minute period at 3.30am.

As these people are just potential witnesses, I'm not saying they 'need' an explanation for anything they did...it just would explain it.
 
Morning guys very interesting on fb page that Nicola is allowing people to discuss more of there ideas and ask questions.... I noticed Nicola as replied to a personal post about Corries car he was saying waitrose carpark is locked at a certain time etc Nicola as put "It was Robert Boby he parked on" I don't no if this as been confirmed on earlier post but thought id put it on :)
 
right guys don't know if this will help Nicola just said on the page about the hidden man whose feet pop out " its clip 6 but the camera chopped the important bit by mistake. They obviously didn't see it either"
 
My Sister and I went to the POD on Thursday. We saw the cctv of the running man and the Police Investigator talking us through the clips confirmed to look also at the dark person on the right under the hanging basket. We asked her at the end about the clip of the person seen wearing hooded clothing who left 4 minutes after Corrie disappeared and she confirmed they had not shown that cctv as there was nothing to say that person had been in the horseshoe area and could have come from anywhere. Your guess is as good as mine!! I got the impression they did not think that person a significant witness to want to trace!
 
Yeah of course but that's boring and wont keep the story in the media. I have to say I am beginning to feel a bit sorry for Suffolk constabulary. The RAF on the other hand who don't seem to have a clue what their people get up to at weekends are getting off lightly at the moment it seems.

Why are the RAF not involved in this especially Hoinington being the Police HQ. I just don't get it!!
 
According to Nicola on the fb page the police are going to be releasing new cd with images to the press hopefully at the beginning of the week. Its driving me nutty now so many mixed messages coming from the police and the family x
 
Mel is the two people running then ?? and may I ask what was the other person who was running wearing as a lot of people in here not seen the hub cctv could you help talk us through what you have seen and what they seemed to be wearing please x
 
hope I'm not cheesing you guys off just trying to help noticed a comment on the fb page by someone that as viewed the CCTV there commenting on the quality of the cctv ...".Some of the ones we saw at the hub which have not been shown by the media were quite clear. But a lot were not. At least some people have been identified. But not the guy in black seen coming out of the horseshoe area just after Corrie went in. He comes out after the guy runs past. But police only told us to look at/identify the runner. Didnt even tell us the other guy was there! I only found that out on here after someone asked Nicola Urquhart why he wasnt mentioned. She was surprised/upset he wasnt as he is the most important one to identify! Makes me wonder WTF the police are playing at?!"
 
Scorpio, can't find that post now but some posts have just disappeared inc the one about awol and all the replies to that. My post was tongue in cheek anyway. Now some have said about a running man going in the opposite direction and also a suggestion (good one I thought) that the runner may have been to distract the camera.
 
Amonet

I can't reply directly to your post as the previous page is now closed. You asked why Corrie couldn't have just told his CO he wanted out, but when you sign up to the services you can't just pack up and go. That's exactly why some people go AWOL. If they could just jack their jobs in they would, but they can't. I believe they can buy themselves out, but I'm unsure as to the cost and if the request is always granted.

Secondly, maybe Corrie wanted to go AWOL from life? Just like thousands of people do every year, and it's simply coincidental that he was in the services.


The Truth Will Out

The waste/refuse bins can be completely discounted. The WHOLE area was searched forensically, and there were no traces of Corrie - let alone a body. Further, IF Corrie was in one of the bins he'd have been discovered when emptying it. A 5"11" 90kg man can't get missed amongst general waste and rubbish.


Jessie

You mentioned that Corrie's pockets were full/bulging, so he must have had his phone in his pocket. Maybe two phones? No-one knows. Men usually carry just their phone, wallet and keys, so perhaps you've picked up on something there....why did his pockets look so full and bulging?

Haynat21

You said that Nicola wrote that she was upset no-one pointed out this man who supposedly hid? She was at the hub - why didn't she make sure it was pointed out? But looking at that footage it's hard to determine if it is a person - it could just be shadows from the buildings.

But let's suppose there were two men (the man running and the man supposedly hiding) Just because they were in the vicinity it doesn't mean they're connected to Corrie's disappearance. After all, Corrie wasn't spotted or caught on CCTV being carried away by two men, which means he couldn't be connected to these men in the way some people are suggesting. Uncle Tony insists you can't leave the area on foot without being captured on CCTV, therefore, neither can two men carrying a person or body leave the area without being captured on camera,

If this "hiding man" was hiding - and simply not standing back in a doorway (like people do when they're waiting for someone) - there could be a perfectly innocent explanation for why these men were there. Maybe they were friends and had a row, maybe one was dealing in drugs, maybe one had stolen something from the other...there's many reasons why people run or stand back in the shadows.

Of course, there is the possibility that Corrie himself was waiting for one of these men, hence why he hung around for 25 minutes after snoozing in the doorway. Who's to say Corrie hadn't made arrangements to meet the man lurking in the shadows earlier than 03:30, and the man arrived late? That would be why Corrie himself was waiting. That could also be why Corrie didn't go straightaway to the end of the pedestrian walk as one would when they're waiting for someone - because he knew CCTV would capture him obviously waiting for someone- and he had to remain in the doorway to avoid being seen.

That would account for Corrie's unusual body language when he ran down to the end, turned left, stopped abruptly, looked around, looked up at the CCTV camera, then put his head DOWN and walked into what he must have known was a dead-end. He wasn't going to pee - men busting to go don't run for one thing - and as it appears he left his food wrappers in the doorway who's to say he didn't pee in there too? In fact, that's exactly where men do choose to pee - in doorways. So......taking all that on board, there's a great possibility Corrie was waiting for that "hiding man" . And the fact after just FOUR minutes a figure emerged in dark clothing from the spot Corrie had gone to, suggests to me that Corrie put more clothes on (possibly brought there by this hiding man), threw his phone in the bin after putting his second SIM in another phone, then simply walked out. Easy as that.

I can't remember where I read it but I seem to recall Corrie's phone is dual sim. So perhaps he still has his phone and has simply swapped the sims.
 
I went to the POD. There was cctv of 3 men in the same clip. Two were together walking towards the camera who have been identified. A third male runs up behind them, one of the 2 turns around to greet him and stops. The running male catches up and walks with the other 2. They were clearly chatting together yet apparently the 2 males have confirmed they do not know who the 3rd male was. This I find hard to believe. I have run to catch friends up before now and it appeared just that. They were all going in the direction away from the horseshoe area. Surely this needs to be shown as it was a clear cctv too.
 
The crazy thing about "that night" is the 2 hour wait.
So what has been said about that ?

From the 3rd of Oct "police appeal for witnesses".

"Corrie does the same thing once he goes out".
"He is an absolute creature of habit".
"Nothing in his behaviour was even remotely unusual".
"That is genuine not unusual, Corrie".

Emphatically, there was nothing unusual about his behaviour. That is what we are told. But a "wait" is unusual, even if it's called "asleep".

"If he has to lay down and have a sleep before he goes home, he will".

"That's not something that would cause me concern, as bizarre as that sounds".

So, it is accepted that the 2 hours spent in a doorway would be bizarre to anyone hearing about Corrie's behaviour that night. But we have to see that as "normal"

What is it that the family know/assume about those 2 hours ?

Was he asleep ?
Was he waiting for someone?
Was he contemplating something ?

I am open to AWOL, suicide, Corrie going off willingly with someone or Corrie unwillingly going off with someone. I suppose anything is a possibility.

Nicola goes on to say "what is absolutely (emphasised) out of character is that he wouldn't contact one of us".

Does that open up the possibility that the family believe he could go Absent Without Leave...but that he would contact them if he did ?

Is it in his character to "go missing" ?
But out of character to "go missing...without any contact" ?



[video=youtube;ouZCCnULs34]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouZCCnULs34[/video]
 
So Mel were does the man who comes out 4 mins after Corrie come into it then ? am I right in thinking the cameras are that focused on this running man the man that comes out isn't really focused on so you don't really get a good look at him x
 
James, I was just thinking along these lines and doing a post but took so long my connection had logged me off. Family have the two hours on cctv don't they so will know if he pee'd called people took photos etc won't they?
 
The family have confirmed if anyone could go missing and appear a few weeks later with a story to tell it would be Corrie. So maybe he has disappeared previously.
 
Quick Poll results

Hook up gone bad - 21
Evaded cameras and accident on way home - 14
AWOL - 9
Accident and cover up - 8
Suicide - 1
Abduction - 1
Terrorism - 0

And finally, 7 of you "hate quick polls" (but you all voted :giggle:)

I think I accidentally hit 'Thanks' on the "hate quick polls" post. :blushing: Too lazy to go back to find it in the other thread now!

If this was 10 years ago and it wasn't the norm to have CCTV everywhere, I'd be fairly certain that Corrie had an accident on the way home.
We read it so often here at WS, young man, night out involving alcohol, young man goes missing and it rarely has a good ending. Especially where there's a river or a rural areas with lakes and ponds. In fact the same thing happened to a friend's brother 40 years ago. It's a sadly frequent scenario when a young man goes missing on a night out.

What's throwing me off from believing this is most likely what happened in Corrie's case is the insistence that it's "impossible" to leave the area on foot without being seen on CCTV.
Personally I'm sceptical about that. I'm not saying that anyone is trying to mislead people when they say that, I'm just not completely convinced that the CCTV is infallible, especially as I haven't heard such an insistence from the police themselves. If the police have said it, can someone link me to a direct MSM quote please.

JMO MOO etc etc.
 
"If he has to lay down and have a sleep before he goes home, he will".

Interesting points.

The thing that bothers me is that, clearly Corrie is in no rush to go back to base. First he sleeps (apparently) and then meanders off to the Horseshoe. Doesn't look at all like he's got any plan to walk home. Although his car never moved, there's a vibe that he was perhaps killing time to be able to drive back. Afterall, he strays from any of the near bus stops and there doesn't seem to be a taxi rank nearby.

So as you say, it's a bit unclear what his true character is. If it's normal for him to "walk home", is an interesting statement, cos the CCTV clearly shows that was seemingly not his intention that night. He wanted to seperate from his friends, eat some food, then kill some time in Bury and for some unknown reason loiter around the Horseshoe.

With individuals mooching about the Horseshoe area at 3.30 in the morning, also suggests that it's some location to hook up with a dealer. I'm not suggesting Corrie does drugs, but to me picking up some cocaine at 3.30 down an alley is more likely than meeting someone off Tinder in an alley at 3.30am. And any of us who've ever met with a drug dealer, knows they like to stick to the shadows and avoid recognition -- a move that clearly several of the Horseshoe loiterers are doing. It's also not unheard of to get in a car with a dealer and be taken to a location to get the merch. I remember my friend had to do just that and he was scared shitless, but he still did it and came back in one piece. That said they drove off for a good 20-30 minutes so anything could've happened in that time and I'd have been none the wiser. It's also really not hard to keep any info about your own personal drug use private from your family. Whereas I would think AWOL would be a lot harder to conceal.

Anyway rather than saying or claiming Corrie is a drug user, I think the better approach would be to ask what on the street drugs is like in Bury, and whether the horseshoe is a known dealer spot. Plenty of towns have them (ever been to Reading?), and they're usually some bins and at the back of a something.

Sorry, another angle that clearly isn't needed, as we have about 100 speculative angles already... but I don't think I've even seen 'drug deal' mentioned here or on official updates.

EDIT:
If Horshoe is a local known drug dealing hotspot.
And Corrie was seen using it.
It would make sense the RAF would not want that information out there.

As others have speculated, if the person who "knows something" is being lured to confess or what not, and it's related to drugs/dealing, the rest of us get only a small slice of the information pie so that an RAF serviceman drugs link is not established in the press. I have no doubt the drugs line of enquiry has been followed, and has possibly even been successful, but the wool has been pulled over our eyes to protect the reputation of the RAF and the "wrong kind" of press/mainstream media coverage occurring. "Wrong kind" meaning "unfavorable to one of the parties involved" (RAF would be my guess).
 
Interesting points.

I don't think I've even seen 'drug deal' mentioned here or on official updates.

(Quote snipped to highlight point)

This has struck me also, that I have seen no mention of this possibility ( unless I've missed it)

After all 'common things are common'


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
227
Guests online
1,817
Total visitors
2,044

Forum statistics

Threads
606,745
Messages
18,210,357
Members
233,954
Latest member
pollcat12
Back
Top