UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #4

[soundssuspicious]

I definitely agree on terms of witness information this person is needed.

If this hooded man in the dark clothing was needed for questioning, why haven't the police appealed? It suggests they don't think he's of much significance.

If he left the horseshoe are just four minutes after Corrie entered, there's no guarantee he actually saw Corrie (we don't know where Corrie went) and If it really was just four minutes in real time, then this man can't have been involved in Corrie's disappearance.

 

[Amonet]

Why is there this "he's gay" talk !

What about a jealous husband/live in partner ?

Let's say "he's gay".
So... "I'll meet you at 3.30am".
Why ?
Gay's work late ?

It's "motive" then "opportunity".
The opportunity LACKS motive if he is gay.

I think that's one thing that puts me off a mutually gay hookup...it's based on the recent news of of the murder of the man in the Grindr hookup. And news of things like that can give ideas to copycats, so that shouldn't be entirely ruled out, but it's very unlikely.

What you're suggesting here is a far less uncommon motive for violence.

So Corrie would have a female friend who's married/attached. Hubby works nights, she's home alone. Corrie goes on Whatsapp and sees she's still awake and she comes to pick him up...the horseshoe being the location because Corrie's sleeping in an area surrounded by pedestrianized streets and one-way systems, and the horseshoe is only a few yards away, plus easy access for a car. They go back to her place together, and later on Saturday hubby comes home and goes mad that his suspicions are confirmed.

It's definitely a theory with merits...no crazy sex attackers, no terrorists, no out-of-character AWOL or suicide, no gay lovers or drugs, no strange muggers who accidentally murder someone and then drive away with the body. I am drawn to the simple logic of it.

 

[soundssuspicious]

Yes a duel sim. Tony has confirmed he only used one SIM card

How would Tony be able to confirm Corrie used only one SIM card if Corrie didn't tell anyone he had two?

 

[soundssuspicious]

hmmmm having a secret second phone is a 'thing' that family might not know (clue is in the word secret)

same could be said for a separate number on a dual sim for secret liaisons so I'd definitely not discount a second number.

that said, I guess 'whatsapp' somewhat diminishes the need for this

Good points.

But re the Whatsapp - your Whatsapp phone number is the same as your mobile number, so you'd need a second phone number if you didn't want whoever was calling you on Whatsapp to know your primary phone number....

 

[soundssuspicious]

Don't be sorry or feel ignorant, it's something that's going to be hard to answer without being an expert in that field and knowing exactly what the readouts from the mast look like. (And I'm not an expert in those things!)

The handset pings the mast because it has the sim card in it. So if you changed the sim, then the main thing you're doing is changing the phone number, and generally when you're looking on the mast for that phone, you're really looking for that phone number.

So tracking a changed sim would depend on how much information is tacked onto the ping along with the phone number. We've also been told that there are legal reasons that the police have difficulty in getting the general information from the mast, and we are not privy to whether or not they have been allowed a warrant to get the general information. I would say that if you changed the sim card, then the phone would appear to go dead, but in reality it would be in use with a different phone number. A more in depth interrogation of the mast data might be able to follow that happening, but they probably don't yet have permission for that more in depth interrogation of the data, because that requires complicated warrants.

You dont don't physically change the SIM card - both cards are inserted in the phone next to each other. You can also have both numbers switched on at the same time if you wish, although obviously you can only have one conversation at a time. So, say you're having a conversation on your primary number, if someone calls you on your second number they'll get your voicemail for that number. And vice versa.

Your 2-SIM card phone will show you on the screen which number is calling you. The sims are independent of each other (so effectively you have two phones in one) and the sims can be from different servers too.

 

[soundssuspicious]

The only part of that I can answer is Nicola has stated police have had access to his media accounts, hence why he is a member of the find Corrie Facebook page and why his plenty of fish has been logged in since he was missing. You could assume the family let them into the accounts, maybe his security information was easy for them to use to get in. But it's been stated a number of times all his messages etc have been checked by police through his media platforms.

When did Nicola say that? I am certain the police are not allowed access to anyone's Facebook account, under any circumstances. It's against data protection etc. So I wonder if Nicola confused that statement?

Corrie's Facebook's account is not following FInd Corrie - that account was set up, I believe by a family member?

I dont know about his POF account, but IF someone is accessing it, then it's either him or someone whose cracked his password.

 

[Amonet]

When did Nicola say that? I am certain the police are not allowed access to anyone's Facebook account, under any circumstances. It's against data protection etc. So I wonder if Nicola confused that statement?

Corrie's Facebook's account is not following FInd Corrie - that account was set up, I believe by a family member?

I dont know about his POF account, but IF someone is accessing it, then it's either him or someone whose cracked his password.

Police can enter the FB account if they request access. Usually the TOS of a site like that will include a section that says they will not release your information to anyone except when the police have a valid warrant (or words to that effect).

However, in this case if the family have Corrie's laptop or tablet, I think it's perfectly valid for them to give police permission to go through the item and check everything on it for clues, and that would include having a look in the FB account.

I also remember Nicola saying the police did have access to Corrie's FB account. I think she said something like, if you see someone logging in on Corrie's account it's just the police and not suspicious activity to report. Because if the police logged in on that account, then Corrie would appear active on the chat thing in the sidebar....it freaked me out once when the daughter of a deceased friend logged into her mum's account and my friend's name went active in the chat thing.

 

[hazel324]

When did Nicola say that? I am certain the police are not allowed access to anyone's Facebook account, under any circumstances. It's against data protection etc. So I wonder if Nicola confused that statement?

Corrie's Facebook's account is not following FInd Corrie - that account was set up, I believe by a family member?

I dont know about his POF account, but IF someone is accessing it, then it's either him or someone whose cracked his password.

I can throw some light on entering social media accounts (maybe)

so at home I often leave browsers on my notebook open with, say, FB, main email, gmail, Trademe (NZ's kinda ebay) and I haven't physically signed in to websleuths for a while....am just lazy and even when I do a shut down the browser is set to remember passwords.

also, my son knows some of my passwords....although thinking about it....I wouldn't be chuffed with him being able to access, say, a dating site profile *eek* good job I don't have those any more :blushing1:

 

[soundssuspicious]

Police can enter the FB account if they request access. Usually the TOS of a site like that will include a section that says they will not release your information to anyone except when the police have a valid warrant (or words to that effect).

However, in this case if the family have Corrie's laptop or tablet, I think it's perfectly valid for them to give police permission to go through the item and check everything on it for clues, and that would include having a look in the FB account.

I also remember Nicola saying the police did have access to Corrie's FB account. I think she said something like, if you see someone logging in on Corrie's account it's just the police and not suspicious activity to report. Because if the police logged in on that account, then Corrie would appear active on the chat thing in the sidebar....it freaked me out once when the daughter of a deceased friend logged into her mum's account and my friend's name went active in the chat thing.

Corrie's family can give his laptop/tablet to the police for inspection - of course. But they can't access Corrie's Facebook, let alone give permission to the police to do so.

Facebook clearly states that they MAY share information of someone's Facebook, but only in response to a court order or subpoenas. I've quoted part of Facebooks terms here:

"We may access, preserve and share your information in response to a legal request (like a search warrant, court order or subpoena) if we have a good faith belief that the law requires us to do so. This may include responding to legal requests from jurisdictions outside of the United States"

I find it strange that as Corrie is listed a 'missing person' and has been missing just 8 weeks, the police have already gone through a court process to gain access to his account. As a missing person I'm not convinced they'd be granted a warrant so soon....or indeed that the police would even request one. And nothing has been made public about that, so I bet they haven't.

If someone is logging into his account, I just can't see it being the police. What's more, the police don't need to regularly log onto an account for the data - they would download it all in one go.

IF they had access to it they may log in to check his private inbox messages, but who would be sending him messages when he's disappeared?

 

[soundssuspicious]

I can throw some light on entering social media accounts (maybe)

so at home I often leave browsers on my notebook open with, say, FB, main email, gmail, Trademe (NZ's kinda ebay) and I haven't physically signed in to websleuths for a while....am just lazy and even when I do a shut down the browser is set to remember passwords.

also, my son knows some of my passwords....although thinking about it....I wouldn't be chuffed with him being able to access, say, a dating site profile *eek* good job I don't have those any more :blushing1:

Good point. I tried to hit the Thank button but it had vanished.

Yes, if Corrie hadn't logged out of Facebook, or simply left his tabs open on his tablet/laptop...I'm guessing he had one or both...then of course his family would have been able to get directly into his accounts. Especially if he left his iPad/laptop in sleep mode, which I always do!

 

[soundssuspicious]

Having read the updates on here and Tony's on Facebook, I suspect it's more than probable that Corrie's phone did travel in the bin lorry. The timings are too coincidental. And it seems like the police are not in any way suspicious of the lorry driver.

When I watched the second CCTV of Corrie, I got the impression he was looking for someone. It did flash through my mind that maybe someone had stolen his phone as he was sat in the doorway, and he'd gone after them, but now it seems likely his phone ended up in the bin I doubt it was stolen. A thief wouldn't run into a dead-end, and he wouldn't be so considerate as to place it in a bin - he'd just sling it if he realised it was of little value. Which means the only person who could have put it in the bin is Corrie himself. There was only about a half hour window between Corrie entering the bin area and the bin lorry arriving, and as nothing or nobody else was spotted leaving or entering the area within that half hour - who but Corrie could have put up in the bin?

OK, there's still a question mark about the hooded man in dark clothing leaving there 4 minutes after Corrie entered, but is that 4 minutes in real time? I'm sure the police put all the relevant images together in one film, otherwise people going to watch it in the hub would be watching it for about 5 hours...

Corrie didn't have his food wrappings when he left the doorway, so had no reason to open that bin...

I also wonder why they haven't shown the CCTV of Corrie when he was in the doorway? Nicola said he was approached by someone when there, and someone else put on here that CCTV showed distressing images. I'm not sure if that means he was crying (which could account for why people may have approached him to ask if he was OK), so something sounds amiss there.

I also wonder why Corrie chose that particular spot to sit in. Was it en-route to home or his car?

We all know Corrie was drunk, and we've heard he'd been drinking in his car earlier, which is surprising as I thought he wouldn't risk even GETTING in a car if he was drunk, let alone actually drinking whilst inside the car. I wonder if he had some kind of problem? It's risky behaviour, and often someone who has a problem will take risks. It's OVERLY risky that he was drinking in his car, because I read that his car was untaxed - and had been for about six months. So you can safely say Corrie took risks. All police cars have NPR (number plate recognition), and it was only per chance that in those 6 months he wasn't spotted and pulled over. I'm surprised he never got clamped. Drinking whilst sat at the wheel of an untaxed car is almost asking to be arrested. So what was making him take such a risk?

I'm in no way demeaning Corrie - he's a young guy without responsibilities - and possibly found things such as getting your taxed boring. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I was like that myself at his age. When I was in my early 20's I was completely irresponsible, and would much rather buy a nice new dress than tax my car...I sometimes even drove uninsured...but you can't do that now, fortunately, and nor would I. But it does seem odd that Corrie, being in the RAF and having a certain position to portray, would either forget or not bother to tax his car. He must have known he could get clamped...

The point I'm making is that Corrie clearly takes risks. So when he's drunk he's even more likely to take risks. He sounds impulsive too...

 

[Rachelle1968]

Having read the updates on here and Tony's on Facebook, I suspect it's more than probable that Corrie's phone did travel in the bin lorry. The timings are too coincidental. And it seems like the police are not in any way suspicious of the lorry driver.

When I watched the second CCTV of Corrie, I got the impression he was looking for someone. It did flash through my mind that maybe someone had stolen his phone as he was sat in the doorway, and he'd gone after them, but now it seems likely his phone ended up in the bin I doubt it was stolen. A thief wouldn't run into a dead-end, and he wouldn't be so considerate as to place it in a bin - he'd just sling it if he realised it was of little value. Which means the only person who could have put it in the bin is Corrie himself. There was only about a half hour window between Corrie entering the bin area and the bin lorry arriving, and as nothing or nobody else was spotted leaving or entering the area within that half hour - who but Corrie could have put up in the bin?

OK, there's still a question mark about the hooded man in dark clothing leaving there 4 minutes after Corrie entered, but is that 4 minutes in real time? I'm sure the police put all the relevant images together in one film, otherwise people going to watch it in the hub would be watching it for about 5 hours...

Corrie didn't have his food wrappings when he left the doorway, so had no reason to open that bin...

I also wonder why they haven't shown the CCTV of Corrie when he was in the doorway? Nicola said he was approached by someone when there, and someone else put on here that CCTV showed distressing images. I'm not sure if that means he was crying (which could account for why people may have approached him to ask if he was OK), so something sounds amiss there.

I also wonder why Corrie chose that particular spot to sit in. Was it en-route to home or his car?

We all know Corrie was drunk, and we've heard he'd been drinking in his car earlier, which is surprising as I thought he wouldn't risk even GETTING in a car if he was drunk, let alone actually drinking whilst inside the car. I wonder if he had some kind of problem? It's risky behaviour, and often someone who has a problem will take risks. It's OVERLY risky that he was drinking in his car, because I read that his car was untaxed - and had been for about six months. So you can safely say Corrie took risks. All police cars have NPR (number plate recognition), and it was only per chance that in those 6 months he wasn't spotted and pulled over. I'm surprised he never got clamped. Drinking whilst sat at the wheel of an untaxed car is almost asking to be arrested. So what was making him take such a risk?

I'm in no way demeaning Corrie - he's a young guy without responsibilities - and possibly found things such as getting your taxed boring. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I was like that myself at his age. When I was in my early 20's I was completely irresponsible, and would much rather buy a nice new dress than tax my car...I sometimes even drove uninsured...but you can't do that now, fortunately, and nor would I. But it does seem odd that Corrie, being in the RAF and having a certain position to portray, would either forget or not bother to tax his car. He must have known he could get clamped...

The point I'm making is that Corrie clearly takes risks. So when he's drunk he's even more likely to take risks. He sounds impulsive too...

______________________________________________

I have one or two problems with your theory....does everything have basis in fact?
First, the area isn't a dead end so a thief wouldn't be running into a dead end; Second, I believe Tony's wording suggested the person in dark.clothing DID in fact leave 4 minutes after we saw Corrie enter the horseshoe area; Thirdly - and perhaps I missed this, I hadon't heard that Corrie's car was untaxed (I don't believe this point to 'risky' behaviour- i had mine untaxed for 12 months because I hadn't checked and the car dealer night bought it off had written the wrong address down when I purchased the car and so the DVLA couldn't send paperwork to me...Corrie's car was newish...) and Fourthly, I hadn't heard that the images of Corrie in the doorway were 'distressing'! The only mention of it has been on this forum and I don't remember theme being described as distressing....I could be wrong however as there is such a lot of information to process. I also think describing him as impulsive is also little bit leading....says who? The way he behaved on that night is similar to how young men (and girls) behave every single wknd around the country (I have two daughters and known what they get up to!).

My twopennorth:
I believe the person involved has taken the phone and dumped when Corrie was in that area with whomever....plenty of people are savvy enough to think to be rid of a phone that could enable you to be tracked. I also think this may well have just been a wrong person, wrong time encounter but that remains to be seen. I do think that the heavily we looked area needs to be searched but I am trying to keep hoping of a positive outcome.

 

[Deleted member 178385]

The Nokia Lumia 435 is available as single SIM or dual SIM.

My understanding - though I never actually saw Tony's response - was that Tony had confirmed that Corrie had the single SIM version. Does anyone have a note of the family source / quote saying he has the dual SIM version?

 

[MelmothTheLost]

I also wonder why they haven't shown the CCTV of Corrie when he was in the doorway? Nicola said he was approached by someone when there, and someone else put on here that CCTV showed distressing images. I'm not sure if that means he was crying (which could account for why people may have approached him to ask if he was OK), so something sounds amiss there.

I've been wondering for some time if what he was really doing was exposing himself and taking dick pics to send to whoever he was "talking" to. If the contact had come from some hookup app or other he might decide to display the goods, as it were, by way of inducement. Just the sort of thing a drunk young man might think a good idea.

That could mean that the person who approached him in the doorway was telling him to put it away or he'd call the police.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

I also wonder why they haven't shown the CCTV of Corrie when he was in the doorway? Nicola said he was approached by someone when there, and someone else put on here that CCTV showed distressing images. I'm not sure if that means he was crying (which could account for why people may have approached him to ask if he was OK), so something sounds amiss there.

Returning to this, I don't recall who first mentioned the idea of the CCTV images being distressing. I've tried searching for the first use appearance of the idea on here but the search facility doesn't narrow it down sufficiently to be able to find it.

Can anyone remember how it first came up and where/when?

 

[MelmothTheLost]

I also wonder why they haven't shown the CCTV of Corrie when he was in the doorway? Nicola said he was approached by someone when there, and someone else put on here that CCTV showed distressing images. I'm not sure if that means he was crying (which could account for why people may have approached him to ask if he was OK), so something sounds amiss there.

Returning to this, I don't recall who first mentioned the idea of the CCTV images being distressing. I've tried searching for the first use appearance of the idea on here but the search facility doesn't narrow it down sufficiently to be able to find it.

Can anyone remember how it first came up and where/when?

 

[Dcflag]

If this hooded man in the dark clothing was needed for questioning, why haven't the police appealed? It suggests they don't think he's of much significance.

If he left the horseshoe are just four minutes after Corrie entered, there's no guarantee he actually saw Corrie (we don't know where Corrie went) and If it really was just four minutes in real time, then this man can't have been involved in Corrie's disappearance.

Tony confirmed it was just after Corrie and that they're about to start appealing for this person.

" Many of you refer to the 'person in dark clothing' who was seen exiting the 'Horseshoe' area a few minutes after Corrie went in. This is correct. This is one of the unidentified people that will be shown in the appeal for assistance" from Tony's most recent update

 

[Dcflag]

When did Nicola say that? I am certain the police are not allowed access to anyone's Facebook account, under any circumstances. It's against data protection etc. So I wonder if Nicola confused that statement?

Corrie's Facebook's account is not following FInd Corrie - that account was set up, I believe by a family member?

I dont know about his POF account, but IF someone is accessing it, then it's either him or someone whose cracked his password.

I'll look for Nicolas comments, but it's definately the police accessing them. I am a member of the Facebook group, if I go on corries profile and click group we have one mutual group "find corrie"

I didn't just randomly make it up you know.

"Social Media / App evaluation
The Police and other agencies are assisting with cellular mast interrogation and social media/app evaluation.
To answer some specific questions that have been asked a lot in this regard:
Yes Corrie is a member of Tinder, Plenty of fish, Instagram and a number of other apps." from Tony's 6th November update, although there should be plenty of family sources for this

 

[Amonet]

Returning to this, I don't recall who first mentioned the idea of the CCTV images being distressing. I've tried searching for the first use appearance of the idea on here but the search facility doesn't narrow it down sufficiently to be able to find it.

Can anyone remember how it first came up and where/when?

We did try to figure this out in the last thread, and all we could come up with was that Ironsides suggested they didn't show the footage as it might be 'upsetting' for the family, and then this morphed into 'distressing'. We couldn't find any certain source for that word, though.

 

[maya90]

Pretty sure the guy was the man on the takeaway who told the police Corrie declined his lift. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong. Was this man confirmed usaf?

Yes he is confirmed USAF.
The footage of him outside the take away shop has been seized by detectives.
The taxi driver that took them (yes more than one) home has confirmed they reached Base with no drop off.
This come from the witness in question - no speculation.