Found Deceased UK - Leah Croucher, 19, Emerson Valley, Milton Keynes, 14 Feb 2019 #2

[Oraclle]

So the timeline for the 14th is now:

• 5pmish - finishes work (going from previous family interviews)
• 5:45pm - arrives back home and changes her mobile settings
• 6pm - leaves home on foot saying she's going to a friend's house in Emerson Valley
• 7:15pm - arrives back home
• 10pmish - she says goodnight to her parents and this is the last time they see her

Following on from this (and taking average times of potential witnesses):

Feb 15th
~08:05 Leaves for work
08:15 Appears on Buzzacott Lane CCTV
~08:35 Phone is switched off
~09:45 Seen typing on a phone on the wooden boardwalk on the Eastern side of the lake
~10:08 Seen crying near the sports pavillion
~10:28 Seen near the Premier Inn, possibly talking on a phone

 

[miss-scarlett23]

Missing teen 'lied to parents' about plans

interesting.... she turned off her location settings the night before!

Just a thought, but it's entirely possible that someone else purposely turned the location settings off on her phone the night before!

 

[Alyce]

I remember it from one of the parents' videos too. It struck a chord because her parents said that she always ate with them, but then mentioned that she had got a takeaway that night. I had wondered if perhaps her parents went out for a valentine's meal and that's why she had the takeaway. Just my speculation at that time.

That's what I remember HK....have just been trying to find the video, but so far only finding snippets of the full interview.

From the clips....
CC says the walk from Quantock to where the cctv picked up Leah on Buzzacott is less than 10 minutes, by Leah's walking speed. So that would mean leaving Quantock as late as 8.08am.
CC also said the complete walk, from Quantock to DFC is about 40 minutes.

Also re the night of the 14th, JC says
we saw her between 10 and 10.30pm, when we went to bed. She was already in bed and we said goodnight.

 

[WiseOwl]

Following on from this (and taking average times of potential witnesses):

Feb 15th
~08:05 Leaves for work
08:15 Appears on Buzzacott Lane CCTV
~08:35 Phone is switched off
~09:45 Seen typing on a phone on the wooden boardwalk on the Eastern side of the lake
~10:08 Seen crying near the sports pavillion
~10:28 Seen near the Premier Inn, possibly talking on a phone

So if Leah was the person seen at Furzton lake then where was she between 8.15 and 9.45? Also the police said she was last seen around 11.15 am.

'DCI Howard is also appealing for anyone who has information about sightings of a female near Furtzon Lake on Friday 15 February, which is the day Leah went missing. He said:“We are also asking for the public’s help in identifying a female matching Leah’s description who was seen near Furzton Lake between about 9.30am and 11.15am on Friday 15 February.'

 

[tresir2012]

The Rutherford Gate CCTV is from the 14th tresir

Oh sorry my mistake. So why are LE telling us about the correct time of that CCTV if it isn't relative to her disappearance? Is it just to let the public know when she would normally be at that point? If so, then she would have been at that spot 20 minutes or so after Buzzacott on a normal walk to work. I can't post the map as I am on my phone. So add on 20 minutes to her sighting at Buzzacott and that would roughly be the time she would normally have got to either Rutherford Gate or the Premier Inn site. (Similar distances). So if that was her, why would she be hanging around upset for so long unless she was waiting to meet someone? Combined with the turning off of location services the night before, can they even be sure she slept at home that night at all?

 

[tresir2012]

So if Leah was the person seen at Furzton lake then where was she between 8.15 and 9.45? Also the police said she was last seen around 11.15 am.

'DCI Howard is also appealing for anyone who has information about sightings of a female near Furtzon Lake on Friday 15 February, which is the day Leah went missing. He said:“We are also asking for the public’s help in identifying a female matching Leah’s description who was seen near Furzton Lake between about 9.30am and 11.15am on Friday 15 February.'

In the Premier Inn Car park with someone? Or the other car park near the pavilion?

 

[cherrytree9]

LEAH CROUCHER UPDATE
Here's the audio from the press conference they had today (from MK Heart News). There's a bit more information not in the articles:

• Her phone data (Samsung S8) "significantly changes" at 5:20 on her way home
• They spoke to Samsung and her service provider and they say the most likely reason is that the location services have been changed for the phone as a whole or the location services were turned off for a particular app
• This suggests the settings were manually changed. They know Leah had the phone in her hands at that time and she had the phone in her possession until she disappeared. So their theory is that Leah did something to an app or her location services which changes her data.
• She arrives home at around 5:45 and is home for 5/10 minutes
• She's fine when she gets home at 7:15, nothing to suggest anything is wrong
• Based off her routes to work, CCTV of Leah on previous days and the CCTV at Buzzacott Lane, they would have expected her to get to work at 8:45
• The witnesses at Furzton Lake are clearly describing the same woman, but they have no idea if it's Leah.

 

[Alyce]

So if Leah was the person seen at Furzton lake then where was she between 8.15 and 9.45? Also the police said she was last seen around 11.15 am.

'DCI Howard is also appealing for anyone who has information about sightings of a female near Furtzon Lake on Friday 15 February, which is the day Leah went missing. He said:“We are also asking for the public’s help in identifying a female matching Leah’s description who was seen near Furzton Lake between about 9.30am and 11.15am on Friday 15 February.'

Leah could have continued on her walk to the office after 8.15am.
If she arrived there ( close by ) and then decided not to go in, that would take the time to about 8.40am.
If she then headed back towards the lake - depending on which route she took - she would get there about 8.55am.
She could then have sat at the lake or even had a walk around - that would easily cover the time until 9.30am when the first witness saw her.

 

[Miss_French]

I have to ask though, surely establishing a timeline is a standard protocol in any case what happened prior to an event is often significant. Why wait over 3 months to do this?

The appeal says 'enquiries have now established that Leah did not go to her friend’s house.' Key word being 'now'; LE had a timeline, but it has changed.

Maybe Leah asked a friend to lie about her visiting and the friend has now decided to come clean, or a member of the friend's family has become aware of the lie and persuaded them to speak up. Or they asked as many friends as they could trace, some new names have come up and its still a negative. Could be any number of reasons why LE now have new info.

 

[Loz2381]

Leah could have continued on her walk to the office after 8.15am.
If she arrived there ( close by ) and then decided not to go in, that would take the time to about 8.40am.
If she then headed back towards the lake - depending on which route she took - she would get there about 8.55am.
She could then have sat at the lake or even had a walk around - that would easily cover the time until 9.30am when the first witness saw her.

It’s unlikely she carried on to work and changed her mind since all video evidence of her routes shows no sign of her. Had she have carried on she would have been seen by the cameras. That’s what the LE was saying they knew her routes and she didn’t appear as expected on the cameras in Shenley Lodge as she did. So this means if it was her by the lake she didn’t follow routine at all. However it’s still possible even though witnesses haven’t come forward to claim it was them doesn’t mean this was definitely 100% Leah. The person may not be aware of the fact they are looking. Lots of people don’t pay attention to news or police appeals they might be completely oblivious to the fact.

 

[Loz2381]

Also to further add thoughts to the mix. If the girl by the lake was indeed Leah then she definitely had a second phone. If she had a second phone then why the need to change her location services? Just leave the phone behind at home and take the second one.

 

[Alyce]

It’s unlikely she carried on to work and changed her mind since all video evidence of her routes shows no sign of her. Had she have carried on she would have been seen by the cameras. That’s what the LE was saying they knew her routes and she didn’t appear as expected on the cameras in Shenley Lodge as she did. So this means if it was her by the lake she didn’t follow routine at all. However it’s still possible even though witnesses haven’t come forward to claim it was them doesn’t mean this was definitely 100% Leah. The person may not be aware of the fact they are looking. Lots of people don’t pay attention to news or police appeals they might be completely oblivious to the fact.

So she could have diverted off her route, towards the lake, after 8.15am. And spent an hour or so by the lake, before being spotted by the 9.30am witness. If she was troubled by something, or waiting for someone, I wouldn't find it too odd that she could spend an hour or so there.

I agree re might not be Leah.... could have been someone staying at the hotel who is not local and has not seen the news. Or could have been someone who was not meant to be there and - despite the police saying that they can contact them anonymously - still thinks she might be caught out by someone if she does this.

 

[Alyce]

Also to further add thoughts to the mix. If the girl by the lake was indeed Leah then she definitely had a second phone. If she had a second phone then why the need to change her location services? Just leave the phone behind at home and take the second one.

Needed to take her usual phone in case mum or dad called while she was out.

 

[tresir2012]

Just a thought, but it's entirely possible that someone else purposely turned the location settings off on her phone the night before!

Did she walk home or get a lift? TVP are saying the phone location was turned off at 5.20 p.m. the night before so she could have been with someone at that time and the location turn off was planned with that other person. MOO. Presumably they have her on the CCTV walking home or someone gave her a lift, which may or may not be on CCTV.

Then they agreed to meet up the next day but the person was late, so she gets upset and has to hang around till they turn up. They leave together. MOO.

 

[Loz2381]

Needed to take her usual phone in case mum or dad called while she was out.

You can forward calls easily enough and if she’s technically aware enough to switch off location services she would be aware how to forward calls too.

 

[ChiCubs2016]

Did she walk home or get a lift? TVP are saying the phone location was turned off at 5.20 p.m. the night before so she could have been with someone at that time and the location turn off was planned with that other person. MOO.

Since Leah uses Snap I thought it might be good to mention, Snap has a map that can be turned on and off (using location services on your phone). It shows your friends where you are. I have mine turned off but now and again I must do something unknowingly to turn it on because my BFF will say, "you know you are on Snap Map". Anyway I just thought I would mention since it has been reported Leah uses Snap with her family and I would think a 19 year old parents having any other sort of tracker might be a little unusual and Snap would be less obvious because you do not have to actually ask anyone to share their location with like Apple Find my Friends, if that makes sense. Also, it would be my inclination that Leah would have purposefully turned this off. She is young, I am old so I am more inclined to do techy things accidentally.

 

[Lyndaloo]

Did she walk home or get a lift? TVP are saying the phone location was turned off at 5.20 p.m. the night before so she could have been with someone at that time and the location turn off was planned with that other person. MOO. Presumably they have her on the CCTV walking home or someone gave her a lift, which may or may not be on CCTV.

Then they agreed to meet up the next day but the person was late, so she gets upset and has to hang around till they turn up. They leave together. MOO.

I’m sure I read today that on the 14th Leah walked home from work & took the east side of Furzton Lake route home. I also read that it is believed location services were switched off around 5.45pm ( approx same time as arriving home).

 

[cherrytree9]

I’m sure I read today that on the 14th Leah walked home from work & took the east side of Furzton Lake route home. I also read that it is believed location services were switched off around 5.45pm ( approx same time as arriving home).

Yeah they said she walked home. The location services time is weird because the articles are saying 5:45 but in the press conference they say around 5:20.

 

[Alyce]

Yeah they said she walked home. The location services time is weird because the articles are saying 5:45 but in the press conference they say around 5:20.

Thanks for that Cherry. I thought I had heard 5.20pm and then later 5.45pm.

 

[Jenesaisquoi]

Brooke advisory centre in MK seems to be open until 7.45pm on Thursdays. Would that be a possibility?