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

[Kasabel]

I'm taking what Tony says at face value and under the assumption he is being straight here. It would go some way to explain things the family have said changing so often if they haven't had info shared or even been given misinformation.

Either way we can assume that neither 'running man' or 'lurker' have been positively identified and/or approached. Since 'lurker' is of the greatest interest to identify and speak to and 'running man' is the only possible individual we know of that may be able to assist in identifying who he is it's a waiting game to see if anything comes out of these 2 paths. All quiet on the fbook page from the family though and no update as yet as to what the latest from the police investigation is as Nicola indicated Tony would do at some point in her post on Sunday evening.

 

[MidsummersDay]

Could be as simple as a gap in communication, Nicola said she hadn't had her usual update with the police as she had been too busy at the POD, I think Tony was last messaging from an airport before jumping on a flight which may have been to Asia or somewhere from what he said, on top of that they've probably got brain freeze from moderating that flaming site and then have the exhaustion and worry etc that having a loved one missing for so long would give you.

I think it's a conflict of interests between all parties if I'm honest. The Mob are staying out of it as English Law trumps Military Law. Suffolk Police are underfunded and undermanned but need to appear proficient and professional. Uncle T is duty bound to his family and with no links to the police and probably more experience and skill sets is taking the firefight forward in typical fashion. Nicola is serving police but it's not her patch so defaults to Uncle T to offer sound bites which is educated guess work and often at odds with Suffolk Police's policy and strategum. Potentially a toxic mix.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

Either way we can assume that neither 'running man' or 'lurker' have been positively identified and/or approached. Since 'lurker' is of the greatest interest to identify and speak to and 'running man' is the only possible individual we know of that may be able to assist in identifying who he is it's a waiting game to see if anything comes out of these 2 paths. All quiet on the fbook page from the family though and no update as yet as to what the latest from the police investigation is as Nicola indicated Tony would do at some point in her post on Sunday evening.

Isn't Tony saying the opposite here? I read it as the reason the higher quality still images of running man or 4 minute man haven't been shown to the public is because he presumes they have been identified?

If neither have been identified and there are higher quality close up stills available why not show these? None of this makes sense.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Yes. You would think that there would be better images of he individual who came out of horseshoe and appears to lurk opposite after doing so! However, as I am only able to speculate on what I have seen (being the cctv of running man and the feet of lurking man!) I would surmise that if this is the clearest images they have of both then sense would indicate that to have any chance of identifying a person you cannot see but for his feet then you need to talk to the one individual you are more likely to be able to identify who can potentially describe this lurking individual in greater detail than just some feet on a cctv image. Nevertheless I am extremely sceptical about 1) there are no other cctv images of lurking man other than his feet 2) they haven't had anyone coming forward attempting to identify either. If they have not I find that very unlucky and if they have it is being kept quiet for a reason.

doesn't cctv 2 have something at the beginning when corrie is jogging/tripping/skipping just before he slows and turns left, looking back ? I couldn't see anything on my mobile but others seem to have seen something. Take a look if any of you have good video definition on your screens. Some people saw a head pop out - maybe someone spoke to corrie and they were expecting him? This could be same lurker seen later. We need to see the continuation of cctv 2 for the following 4 minutes therefore as he may be seen going into bin area after corrie then leaving 4 minutes later as the 4 minute man. Does that make sense?

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

If they have been identified then why show them at all?! As far as I am led to believe they were only showing cctv images in the POD (which is where the Anglian News thread of the cctv we are referring to was shown) of those individuals they haven't identified yet out of the 23 people who were in and about Bury town centre at that time (as Goape says above being after Corrie is seen on cctv entering horseshoe as per Tony's Facebook comment in answer to such question).

Weren't the the group of three (two women and a man) already identified? They were still part of the compilation.

The bottom line here is that the whole thing is a hot mess and while the Police say and do nothing officially, it will just get worse.

 

[Kasabel]

doesn't cctv 2 have something at the beginning when corrie is jogging/tripping/skipping just before he slows and turns left, looking back ? I couldn't see anything on my mobile but others seem to have seen something. Take a look if any of you have good video definition on your screens. Some people saw a head pop out - maybe someone spoke to corrie and they were expecting him? This could be same lurker seen later. We need to see the continuation of cctv 2 for the following 4 minutes therefore as he may be seen going into bin area after corrie then leaving 4 minutes later as the 4 minute man. Does that make sense?

There have been so many folk saying so many different things and a lot of hearsay which is why it is so difficult to actually surmise fact from fiction. I think everyone is pretty unanimous in agreeing that as the guy runs by someone's feet become visible at the left hand side of the screen opposite and just up from horseshoe area. I don't see a head pop up in the cctv of Corrie when he is turning right towards horseshoe so I don't want to start running with something I haven't seen.

 

[JamesKing]

If he left in a car..
...why bother with four and a half hours of "guess who he is" ?

And they have 3 cars leaving SB (so they arrived ?), then that's the main line of enquiry ?

 

[Kasabel]

Weren't the the group of three (two women and a man) already identified? They were still part of the compilation.

The bottom line here is that the whole thing is a hot mess and while the Police say and do nothing officially, it will just get worse.

I would think the 3 were identified on the basis of the cctv footage as here were many comments under that thread of 'isn't that such and such'. This is what I am supposing. On the same front we could also suppose that running man and lurker have also been identified as we aren't being told anything different! Quite a bit of a hot mess you are right! But I do believe that although it seems that way there will be solid lines of inquiry proceeding that we as Joe Public are not privy to and that's ok. At least we should hope so or it really is one big mixing pot. I'm inclined to think that the silence on the family front is a good thing in that there is something bubbling under the surface and advances are being made covertly as they should be.

 

[Kasabel]

If he left in a car..
...why bother with four and a half hours of "guess who he is" ?

And they have 3 cars leaving SB (so they arrived ?), then that's the main line of enquiry ?

Because I am not guessing who he is. I am identifying a person of interest and being specific about the reasons I believe this person to be of interest. You can only follow a line of inquiry based on linear projections. To get from A to C you must go through B.......Did he leave in a car? I don't know. I haven't seen any cctv footage of a car leaving horseshoe so why would I assume that based on speculation? I assume that if they have evidence of a car leaving then they will be following that line of enquiry. Until anything else comes up my line stops at what I have seen and that is Corrie enters horseshoe and there is a potential witness to him being there. For me until that witness is found or further evidence is made public that's where it ends. I'm certainly not going to start speculating on which direction a car took out of horseshoe and where it went etc., as there has been nothing to run with in that respect.

 

[Shiressleuth]

There have been so many folk saying so many different things and a lot of hearsay which is why it is so difficult to actually surmise fact from fiction. I think everyone is pretty unanimous in agreeing that as the guy runs by someone's feet become visible at the left hand side of the screen opposite and just up from horseshoe area. I don't see a head pop up in the cctv of Corrie when he is turning right towards horseshoe so I don't want to start running with something I haven't seen.

I saw nothing either but am saying look again. And if the video is left running on for four minutes after corrie disappears (his last ever sighting) what is seen in that four minutes? It must be important surely to see that four minutes from when corrie disappears to the appearance of the 4 minute man coming out? This whole case is about what hasn't been seen after all.

 

[Kasabel]

I saw nothing either but am saying look again. And if the video is left running on for four minutes after corrie disappears (his last ever sighting) what is seen in that four minutes? It must be important surely to see that four minutes from when corrie disappears to the appearance of the 4 minute man coming out? This whole case is about what hasn't been seen after all.

Purely speculation then I would say that 4 mins is more than enough time to incapacitate someone and bundle them into the back of a car which then drives the wrong way out up a one way street. More than enough time.

Or is lurker a look out for whoever is in horseshoe with Corrie? Is that why a flash goes off opposite where he is standing when he sees someone come running down at the top of the street. Does he use his phone to try and warn whoever he is keeping a lookout for.

All pure speculation around what what can be seen and then added to with a bit of imagination which stays within the realms of possibility.

It would be great if we could see the other cctv footage which is not being released for whatever reason. But I'm pretty sure that police detectives are a lot smarter and more experienced than me which is why I firmly believe that they will be following solid lines of inquiry based on whatever they have seen that we do not get to see. It all seems rather too fishy for there not to be something going on in the background. Hopefully something will break soon and we can re-establish a bit of confidence in what appears to be a bit of a mess at the moment.

 

[JamesKing]

Because I am not guessing who he is. I am identifying a person of interest and being specific about the reasons I believe this person to be of interest. You can only follow a line of inquiry based on linear projections. To get from A to C you must go through B.......Did he leave in a car? I don't know. I haven't seen any cctv footage of a car leaving horseshoe so why would I assume that based on speculation? I assume that if they have evidence of a car leaving then they will be following that line of enquiry. Until anything else comes up my line stops at what I have seen and that is Corrie enters horseshoe and there is a potential witness to him being there. For me until that witness is found or further evidence is made public that's where it ends. I'm certainly not going to start speculating on which direction a car took out of horseshoe and where it went etc., as there has been nothing to run with in that respect.

But you are now "second guessing" the police and the military ?

Both, it is said by Nicola have tried and tested the exit points AND it is impossible.

So... it is either "you're second guessing" OR "there is a conspiracy"

It simply cannot be both

 

[Kasabel]

But you are now "second guessing" the police and the military ?

Both, it is said by Nicola have tried and tested the exit points AND it is impossible.

So... it is either "you're second guessing" OR "there is a conspiracy"

It simply cannot be both

In what way does stating that if the police have evidence of this then I'm sure they are following second guess anything? And when have I ever mentioned the military??!!! You are talking absolute nonsense JamesKing.

 

[JamesKing]

But "K" you "claim" you're not "second guessing", you are !

You have to deal with "presented facts" OR "you disagree with presented facts", which then is a different ball game.

I do not know why people keep questioning this !

If Nicola/Tony have said "there is no way he could have left unseen" Then that is what it is. They have more than seen the evidence.

If you don't believe them, then you are saying "they are conspiring". That's how "statements of fact" work

So stop saying "Nah. it is possible...." Say "they're not telling the truth".

 

[Greater Than]

Several posts have been removed.

Everyone needs a refresher of what can and cannot be discussed here.

Please go back and reread post #2 of this thread and thank it when you're done.

This thread is temporarily closed for review.

 

[Greater Than]

Please continue at Thread #7