UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #17

[Amonet]

I think those things are logical inferences rather than facts. And I think they are logical and reasonable.

 

[suzyjackson]

Yes as TaskForce88 said, it is not a question of whether they do or don't have the phone data. 100% they do. It is very easy to obtain, very easy to understand and very detailed. They will know whether he made calls, messages or internet access.
There was a photo message sent; if you look back they didn't ask for info on who received it, they knew he sent it and to who. What didn't tie in was that the CCTV evidence didn't show him using his phone at the time it was sent. The police have assumed that the picture was sent once a decent signal was available, which is how phones work.
I have just re-read my supposed contradictory statement and yepp, bad English, i used two negatives in one statement.
It meant that all phone data is stored by the network provider and easily accessed by the police.
It does raise the question of whether he did have his phone in the Hughes doorway ... it does raise the question of maybe it wasn't him that sent the photo (strangely it was one of a previous night out) .. but prefer to stick to the facts .. and the facts are
The police know all his phone/internet useage ...

I don't think it is too much of an assumption to be sure that the police have all the phone data BUT as we've known from the start they can't access the content of whatsapp or other secure message systems. That is why the physical phone is important, I'm not sure after all this time how usable it would be but at least knowing its final location could be helpful.

I've said from the start that it was pretty obvious that they knew about the 3.08am message because the recipient told them and showed them the message. The identity of that person has changed but my opinion hasn't, IMVHO it's clear that once A knew C was missing she said straight away that the last time she had contact with him was the message and was able to provide that info.

There are many fanciful theories about that message but I'm sticking with the blindingly simple

JMO as always

 

[Shiressleuth]

I think those things are logical inferences rather than facts. And I think they are logical and reasonable.

I don't disagree but they have been stated clearly as facts. Rules are rules and I am sure YC can speak on own behalf and provide links for such facts.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Someone somewhere in the ethersphere reckons this is the bike. Thoughts?

https://www.cycleking.co.uk/catalogsearch/result/?q=Viking+elysee

 

[Shiressleuth]

Someone somewhere in the ethersphere reckons this is the bike. Thoughts?

https://www.cycleking.co.uk/catalogsearch/result/?q=Viking+elysee

I thought the cyclist was no longer outstanding IMo and I believe the bike is the one behind C in his swingers photo jmo.

 

[Amonet]

I don't think either pic looked like a woman cyclist, so *if* it was a woman's bike, then that would back up my thought that it was someone who doesn't normally ride a bike around and just grabbed a family member's bike from the shed or garage, hence no cycling accoutrements?

Before seeing that bike I had no idea that a lot of modern women's bikes have a very similar cross bar to a man's bike, and I couldn't tell the difference very well when I went to look up bikes online.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I thought the cyclist was no longer outstanding and I believe the bike is the one behind C in his swingers photo jmo.

The cyclist is no longer outstanding?? Have you got a link?

 

[Shiressleuth]

I just realised how the police would know for sure if C had his phone in the doorway or not. Apparently it was pinging around BSE that night so if it stayed in one location for the two hours that C was in the doorway, that would mean he had it with him in that doorway wouldn't it? Jmo of course. Or is that too simple?

 

[Northern Light]

The cyclist is no longer outstanding?? Have you got a link?

The cyclist beside the car is still on Suffolk Police website, just looked.

 

[Amonet]

Do you think if the police had a reason other than the 4.20am bin lorry to search the Milton landfill that they would have informed the family? Or would they just let them assume?

 

[Shiressleuth]

The cyclist is no longer outstanding?? Have you got a link?

Jmo I think I said but will edit and add another. What do you think about the cycle king bike? Who owns cycle king?

 

[Northern Light]

I don't think either pic looked like a woman cyclist, so *if* it was a woman's bike, then that would back up my thought that it was someone who doesn't normally ride a bike around and just grabbed a family member's bike from the shed or garage, hence no cycling accoutrements?

I agree. Before seeing that bike I had no idea that a lot of modern women's bikes have a very similar cross bar to a man's bike, and I couldn't tell the difference very well when I went to look up bikes online.

I have listed previously that I thought it was a male on a bike too small for him, and no lights on the bike, meant, to me, that the bike wasn't usually ridden at night, and borrowed by the rider.

 

[suzyjackson]

I thought the cyclist was no longer outstanding and I believe the bike is the one behind C in his swingers photo jmo.

I'm confused about whether there is a correct name for the cyclist yet, so many different opinions but I thought it was agreed that the bike in the photo wasn't the same bike. Didn't we have a poster who explained the differences?

Sorry if I've got that wrong but I've been under the impression that the swingers photo was taken in some kind of public area and it was just a fluke that there happened to be a bike in the photo. If it was the same bike that would put a very different spin on things. iirc the poster who suggested C might have left his bike in BSE for transport after nights out was very much disgreed with

JMO

 

[suzyjackson]

I just realised how the police would know for sure if C had his phone in the doorway or not. Apparently it was pinging around BSE that night so if it stayed in one location for the two hours that C was in the doorway, that would mean he had it with him in that doorway wouldn't it? Jmo of course. Or is that too simple?

An excellent point, I think you are 100% correct, simple and right IMO

 

[Northern Light]

I'm confused about whether there is a correct name for the cyclist yet, so many different opinions but I thought it was agreed that the bike in the photo wasn't the same bike. Didn't we have a poster who explained the differences?

Sorry if I've got that wrong but I've been under the impression that the swingers photo was taken in some kind of public area and it was just a fluke that there happened to be a bike in the photo. If it was the same bike that would put a very different spin on things. iirc the poster who suggested C might have left his bike in BSE for transport after nights out was very much disgreed with

JMO

Yes a couple of posters, way back on threads, checked them and concluded they were not the same bikes.

 

[suzyjackson]

I have listed previously that I thought it was a male on a bike too small for him, and no lights on the bike, meant, to me, that the bike wasn't usually ridden at night, and borrowed by the rider.

Or maybe only ridden around the town centre that is always well lit so not having lights isn't too much of a concern.

The fact that the cyclist hasn't come forward of their own accord suggests they might not be 100% above board so may have a disregard for their basic cycling proficiency training

 

[Shiressleuth]

The cyclist beside the car is still on Suffolk Police website, just looked.

The head on pic too?

 

[Northern Light]

Do you think if the police had a reason other than the 4.20am bin lorry to search the Milton landfill that they would have informed the family? Or would they just let them assume?

I don't think the Police would inform them, in case of leaked info that could jeopardise a future case. I think they will tell them basics, on a need to know, info, basis. It's interesting that Andy King, Sulsar, has said we are no further forward in terms of information than we were at the beginning. Again police would not be giving out info, except what is available to the general public. It did make me wonder, could this be the case that they don't have anything more than was released at the beginning. JMO

 

[Northern Light]

The head on pic too?

Head on one has been removed.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Yes a couple of posters, way back on threads, checked them and concluded they were not the same bikes.

I was not convinced. The only diff appeared to be the handlebars which also appeared as different colours in the two SP pics themselves. That could also be tape and the swingers pic could be a year or so old imo.