UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #1

[hermes&&]

I wonder if this is why his mum had made the post about archiving all the interviews etc. on youtube, as 'things were being deleted'?

Yes could well be.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[JamesKing]

I wonder if this is why his mum had made the post about archiving all the interviews etc. on youtube, as 'things were being deleted'?

Very possibly.

 

[JamesKing]

An "odd" thing about a D Notice's is.... it's aimed at "not releasing information that may damage National Security".
But this is a "civilian police matter" and a "missing persons enquiry".

Why "two days ago" did they slap a D Notice on this ? What has come to light ?

 

[Purplepixii]

Brain dump before bed:

1/ I have friends who run and their routes appear on their Facebook feeds as a nice little map so I can see why this is a bad idea for some.
2/ Police "lack of action" may well be due to a D-notice.
3/ Funnily enough a D-notice was suggested yesterday on another website.
4/ The sad case of Lee Rigby was a few years ago but the RAF Marham attempted abduction was only a few months ago. If Corrie was daft enough to attempt to walk home, or to get into the car of a stranger/acquaintance, then it could be an abduction, covered by this D-notice malarky.
5/ If I read one more "it can't be Daesh because they would have taken claim for it by now" comment I might scream. "Smart baddies" plan to instill upset/fear/mistrust by doing bad things and NOT claiming responsibility. It's far scarier to have an unexplained situation than an explained one.

Upon which I am outta here, my pillow is calling me fftobed:

 

[Lolabear]

Brain dump before bed:

1/ I have friends who run and their routes appear on their Facebook feeds as a nice little map so I can see why this is a bad idea for some.
2/ Police "lack of action" may well be due to a D-notice.
3/ Funnily enough a D-notice was suggested yesterday on another website.
4/ The sad case of Lee Rigby was a few years ago but the RAF Marham attempted abduction was only a few months ago. If Corrie was daft enough to attempt to walk home, or to get into the car of a stranger/acquaintance, then it could be an abduction, covered by this D-notice malarky.
5/ If I read one more "it can't be Daesh because they would have taken claim for it by now" comment I might scream. "Smart baddies" plan to instill upset/fear/mistrust by doing bad things and NOT claiming responsibility. It's far scarier to have an unexplained situation than an explained one.

Upon which I am outta here, my pillow is calling me fftobed:

What is a d notice?

 

[hermes&&]

An "odd" thing about a D Notice's is.... it's aimed at "not releasing information that may damage National Security".
But this is a "civilian police matter" and a "missing persons enquiry".

Why "two days ago" did they slap a D Notice on this ? What has come to light ?

I think d notice might be older than two days (coverage been low key) promoted by not just Marham but general security concerns. But I assume they have been monitoring the wires for chatter and may have picked up on something,

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[JamesKing]

What is a d notice?

Kind of a "very special gagging order, issued by the Government and without a Court, to the media" ish.

It's "voluntary" :thinking:

 

[Lolabear]

Kind of a "very special gagging order, issued by the Government and without a court, to the media" ish.

It's "voluntary" :thinking:

Thanks!

 

[gregjrichards]

Brain dump before bed:

1/ I have friends who run and their routes appear on their Facebook feeds as a nice little map so I can see why this is a bad idea for some.
2/ Police "lack of action" may well be due to a D-notice.
3/ Funnily enough a D-notice was suggested yesterday on another website.
4/ The sad case of Lee Rigby was a few years ago but the RAF Marham attempted abduction was only a few months ago. If Corrie was daft enough to attempt to walk home, or to get into the car of a stranger/acquaintance, then it could be an abduction, covered by this D-notice malarky.
5/ If I read one more "it can't be Daesh because they would have taken claim for it by now" comment I might scream. "Smart baddies" plan to instill upset/fear/mistrust by doing bad things and NOT claiming responsibility. It's far scarier to have an unexplained situation than an explained one.

Upon which I am outta here, my pillow is calling me fftobed:

I was dismissive about this being terrorist related but ISIS have only just taken responsibility for a stabbing murder of a 15 year old and his girlfriend in September in the last 24 hours in Germany so it's a possibility. I'm not ruling anything out.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

Isn't there a bit of a contradiction from Corrie's uncle when he points out the lack of resources? Surely if this is in some way terror related there would be full resources from Military and government?

 

[hermes&&]

I was dismissive about this being terrorist related but ISIS have only just taken responsibility for a stabbing murder of a 15 year old and his girlfriend in September in the last 24 hours in Germany so it's a possibility. I'm not ruling anything out.

I've been vocal saying that this could be an enemy abduction based on terrorist instructions to their minions but of course we don't know anything and it could still be an accident.

But we should be under no illusion abductions are a real threat and the d notice highlights this.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[JamesKing]

Isn't there a bit of a contradiction from Corrie's uncle when he points out the lack of resources? Surely if this is in some way terror related there would be full resources from Military and government?

Technically, the police will be still in control of the investigation AND would need to resource it.
Rupert and his chums won't take over, they will likely run their own investigation .....and they won't share what they have with the local "plod". They'll have to continue "as is" as it were.

All that can be said is, something has spiked someones interest. And so much so, that they have issued the notice to stop reporting it....or any details that may now become "relevant" (or not as the case maybe).

The fact "it's now known" is amazing.

 

[JamesKing]

Just a question.... was there anything more said after "Uncle Tony" said about the D Notice ?

Did anyone on facebook pick up on it ? And did Tony say anything else ?

 

[Amonet]

Bizarrely.... only half of sex offenders actually move the body (in murder and sexual assault cases).

And when a body is moved, the motivation is so that "there is no connection between the victim and the attacker".

If we follow that line, and IF (big if) he was attacked/assaulted and moved it is "highly likely" that Corrie could have known or being acquainted to an attacker.

That's the stats for ya.

Stats are good, but they have to be matched to context.

Moving bodies, primary and secondary crime scenes, all has to be matched with context.

Street crimes tend to leave only primary crime scenes...the person is left where the attack takes place. If the person is left barely alive they might crawl to a secondary place. If the attack took place on a brightly lit street, then the perp, I think this is more likely if it's more than one perp, might drag the body to a lesser lit alley that's just a few feet away.

That should be the case even for a sex attack. But with a sex attack you're more likely to drag the person to that dimly lit, just a few feet away place before the sexual part of the attack takes place...it's easier to put your hands around a woman's neck and drag her still standing than it is to knock her out and then drag the dead weight and then commit the sexual assault. But once the assault has taken place, then the body will be left in situ and it would be the victim that would provide any secondary site by crawling.

We know that there's no body in the bin area or in an alley in BSE, so we can extrapolate that it wasn't a street attack, mugging, or even sex attack on the street.

So if an attack took place, we've ruled out a random street attack. We also have the phone pings that suggest a car moving in the Barton Mills/Mildenhall area. So, how do we work in the stats for primary and secondary scenes for this kind of scenario?

The car now becomes a crime scene which the perp has to remove the victim from (connection back to the perp). And you can't drive around forever with the victim in your car, so you are forced to have multiple crime scenes in such a scenario just by practicality.

An alternative is that the car is the mode of movement, the equivalent to dragging someone from a brightly lit street into a dark alley, but is not where the actual, main attack, takes place. So the car is a form of transport, transporting the perp and victim to and from primary, secondary, and tertiary crime scenes.

The car can transport perp and victim to the perp's own house, or a place they are comfortable in. In this scenario, the perp's house is the primary crime scene, and they won't leave a stranger victim in the house or dig a hole in the back garden for them (which in itself would be a secondary crime scene). They will use that car to take the body elsewhere, either for discovery, or in the hope that it won't be discovered (and this place will be the secondary crime scene). I'll say now that this is the scenario family that matches closest to what I'm working on in my mind (along with open mind to other possibilities and still high probability that Corrie met with an accident). This does not imply 100% that Corrie would have known the attacker, but he may have done. To get into a car willingly requires either good or slight acquaintance, or a ruse (which could be a fake taxi, but I don't rate that with high odds for a male-on-male attack). To drive someone back to your house means there's no one else in the house at the time? Well, probably. Alternatively, go somewhere that the perp feels comfortable....if it's a male-on-male sex crime then all those outside areas come into play, but we're going to have to drive somewhere that's not in use...being in a car doesn't make that a major problem. Corrie being the victim in this scenario does make this a problem. If he's not gay, then why does he accept driving around looking for such an outside place? I think this is why 'my scenario' has the perp taking Corrie back to his home for the primary crime scene, and then driving somewhere else for the dumping of the body, thus creating a secondary crime scene.

The thing is that given the phone pings, it might be possible for the police to extrapolate a rough area for the primary and secondary scenes, assuming a secondary scene exists, and it probably does, imho, because even if an attack took place in an open area in woodland, the perp might drag the body into bushes to make it less likely to be found. Even if it's a stranger attack in the perp's home, the perp doesn't have personal acquaintance with the victim, but they still have to ensure they leave the body in a place that is less likely (in their mind) to be connected back to them. This is where you've probably seen on documentaries or crime TV shows where they put up maps with circles and triangles, and the experts in this area of study and extrapolate the information using those tools, but the reason they can do that is because the perp is subconsciously doing this in their head.

So even without evidence, it is possible for such a perp to be found..IF he exists. But it would be quiet, back-room police work, and they would not give *us* clues along the way.

 

[Amonet]

It certainly explains why the Police haven't spoken at all about the case. Even they can't speak about such a thing.

The question is why has it been issued at all? Does it mean whatever happened it only involves military personnel or terrorism?

What do we do now? Clearly the family aren't happy about the situation given TW's post...

Hypothesising...Corrie is serving military, gone missing not far from a military base, and the phone was tracked to within a few miles of a USAF base. These circumstances alone might be cause for a D-notice regarding reporting restrictions for things like names and locations. It might be no more sinister than that.

But a question: how does the D-notice affect what the family can be told? If it affects what they can be told about the investigation, or if they just perceive it might be affecting/limiting information that they're given, they might feel very out-of-the-loop and frustrated, in addition to the frustration they're already feeling as the days wear on with no news.

I would say that chances are if the phone was found that there would be no reporting restriction, unless it was found on MOD land, in which case a restriction could, theoretically, kick in. They could also tell a little white lie to the media that the phone's been found but not give the exact position where it was found.

The extreme lack of specificity of the phone pings could relate to how close the final position is to MOD land which bears a USAF base.

Another possibility is that Tony is theorising that there's a D-notice. If he's ex-military then he presumably shouldn't be discussing that one exists on his nephew's case if it's such a secret thing.

 

[hermes&&]

Hypothesising...Corrie is serving military, gone missing not far from a military base, and the phone was tracked to within a few miles of a USAF base. These circumstances alone might be cause for a D-notice regarding reporting restrictions for things like names and locations. It might be no more sinister than that.

But a question: how does the D-notice affect what the family can be told? If it affects what they can be told about the investigation, or if they just perceive it might be affecting/limiting information that they're given, they might feel very out-of-the-loop and frustrated, in addition to the frustration they're already feeling as the days wear on with no news.

I would say that chances are if the phone was found that there would be no reporting restriction, unless it was found on MOD land, in which case a restriction could, theoretically, kick in. They could also tell a little white lie to the media that the phone's been found but not give the exact position where it was found.

The extreme lack of specificity of the phone pings could relate to how close the final position is to MOD land which bears a USAF base.

Another possibility is that Tony is theorising that there's a D-notice. If he's ex-military then he presumably shouldn't be discussing that one exists on his nephew's case if it's such a secret thing.

I think it's more than that going by the uncle's words. He's implying the notice is having a material effect ("unfortunately")

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Amonet]

The thing is that if we even think there's a D-notice, then that might affect the ideas we come up with.

If there's a fear that there might be terrorists laying in wait to catch servicemen alone, then just something like Nicola saying that Corrie often walks home alone after a Friday night out might send a terrorist vehicle to lay in wait along that route from BSE to Honington, therefore a D-notice might restrict admitting something that's a truth relevant to the case.

But...if Corrie is ever found, then it could result in a civilian court case and stories in the papers...so whatever is allowed out has to correlate to the facts of the case, they can't go too far away from reality, they can only cover up a few more sensitive items. So I don't think anyone will tell us major outright lies. I think we can still safely assume that the basics are correct, that Corrie's gone missing after a night out on the town, and he's not yet been found in the searched areas. If the police/authorities know something definite, they've got to tell the family something, and then you'd likely see the family just drift out of view. But the family are doing the exact opposite, so they haven't been told that signs of terrorist abduction have been found, or anything of that nature, imo.

 

[hermes&&]

The thing is that if we even think there's a D-notice, then that might affect the ideas we come up with.

If there's a fear that there might be terrorists laying in wait to catch servicemen alone, then just something like Nicola saying that Corrie often walks home alone after a Friday night out might send a terrorist vehicle to lay in wait along that route from BSE to Honington, therefore a D-notice might restrict admitting something that's a truth relevant to the case.

But...if Corrie is ever found, then it could result in a civilian court case and stories in the papers...so whatever is allowed out has to correlate to the facts of the case, they can't go too far away from reality, they can only cover up a few more sensitive items. So I don't think anyone will tell us major outright lies. I think we can still safely assume that the basics are correct, that Corrie's gone missing after a night out on the town, and he's not yet been found in the searched areas. If the police/authorities know something definite, they've got to tell the family something, and then you'd likely see the family just drift out of view. But the family are doing the exact opposite, so they haven't been told that signs of terrorist abduction have been found, or anything of that nature, imo.

I think it's interesting that the family have stressed the possibility of third party involvement. It's clear from the mail story that terrorists are looking for opportunities and I read a while back that even police officers were being told not to commute in uniform for great of abduction/harm.

The D notice will only effect what the press tells I dont think the press would have even been free to say there was a D Notice.





Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[MelmothTheLost]

So where does this leave us?

We've been complaining about the lack of information from the Police, but it now seems clear that there is unlikely to be much new information forthcoming. It's my understanding that any D Notice relates to the press rather than the Police, but clearly information is being withheld from the public above and beyond what one expects in a police investigation.

It's also difficult to see how the public can be much help since they in turn are being given so little reliable information upon which to base a judgement as to whether anything they may have seen is likely to be relevant. It's almost as though the timeline and Corrie's movements are being deliberately obfuscated and we are deliberately being given only the smallest scraps of information, eg the two very short CCTV clips.

Or maybe Suffolk Police really are out of their depth in this investigation and are genuinely floundering haplessly.

I wonder if the police investigation is simply a front concealing a much more massive behind the scenes investigation by the military and security services.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

It's a curious thing that if you Google Corrie's name this thread appears somewhere down on the 5th page, whereas usually the Websleuths thread for any particular case is up there in the top handful of links. It's probably a measure of how much MSM coverage there has been of the case that we're down on the 5th page.

It was also instructive to go back to the first page or so of this thread and see what our instincts were right from the start.

I wouldn't be surprised if this discussion and others like it are being monitored by TPTB. I suspect some of our earlier out-there speculations may yet turn out to be much closer to the truth than we imagined at the time.