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

[rogerthelodger]

(Quote snipped to highlight point)

This has struck me also, that I have seen no mention of this possibility ( unless I've missed it)

After all 'common things are common'


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I did see 'undesirable' mentioned by Uncle Tony a while back and recall I commented on f/b about it along with several other locals stating that its the first I have heard about it however...I am not familiar with what goes on during those hours in town it seems.

 

[JamesKing]

Drugs Pushers have a habit of keeping their users alive.
That's their revenue stream.

Whereas "drugs suppliers" and "drugs pushers" can and do fall out. Money (and the loss of it) always makes for "bad friends".

Since we may as well run through every type of situation that's possible in this day and age...

....a Pusher who's had his stash "confiscated", isn't going to be well liked by a Supplier, if Pusher is on "commission".
Maybe that's why he was "asked to leave" the club.

But a "supplier to a pusher" relationship would have taken along time to build up. A certain amount of trust has to be built up. They are usually known to each other (friends of friends, same city, petty criminal types when younger etc). And one or either usually come on the police radar for "other things" before one of them gets their collar felt....and links can be made.

Anything is possible. That's why I'm keeping "AWOL" as a possibility also.

 

[Simone44]

I did see 'undesirable' mentioned by Uncle Tony a while back and recall I commented on f/b about it along with several other locals stating that its the first I have heard about it however...I am not familiar with what goes on during those hours in town it seems.

I think Tony is referring to the fact that one of the addresses on Brentgovel Street.26,I think,is a place for rehab for drug addicts and alcoholics so there might be people with those addictions hanging around there.

 

[JamesKing]

Like any town, there are problems.
The fact there is a lot of competition in London and Bury's easy links to there maybe be why crime has increased.

Article dated 2014.

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/poll_gan...le_in_bury_st_edmunds_and_newmarket_1_3510982


[FONT=&quot]But Chief Inspector Tonya Antonis, policing commander for St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath, said police were working with partners to address the issue, but dealers from outside the area were becoming a much larger problem.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]She said: “You have on the one hand your local people, local criminals engaged in that activity, using drugs and dealing in drugs local to that area.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“You have another aspect, predominantly from the metropolitan areas, coming up to areas such as Bury St Edmunds and Newmarket and dealing drugs in this area.[/FONT]

 

[Bethan]

I'll try again.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

"If he has to lay down and have a sleep before he goes home, he will".

"That's not something that would cause me concern, as bizarre as that sounds".

So, it is accepted that the 2 hours spent in a doorway would be bizarre to anyone hearing about Corrie's behaviour that night. But we have to see that as "normal"

Maybe I am getting old, but it seems seriously off to me that a mother would regard her son getting so pissed as to need to fall asleep in a shop doorway for a few hours as something normal.

 

[Bethan]

Drugs Pushers have a habit of keeping their users alive.
That's their revenue stream.

Whereas "drugs suppliers" and "drugs pushers" can and do fall out. Money (and the loss of it) always makes for "bad friends".

Since we may as well run through every type of situation that's possible in this day and age...

....a Pusher who's had his stash "confiscated", isn't going to be well liked by a Supplier, if Pusher is on "commission".
Maybe that's why he was "asked to leave" the club.

But a "supplier to a pusher" relationship would have taken along time to build up. A certain amount of trust has to be built up. They are usually known to each other (friends of friends, same city, petty criminal types when younger etc). And one or either usually come on the police radar for "other things" before one of them gets their collar felt....and links can be made.

Anything is possible. That's why I'm keeping "AWOL" as a possibility also.

I was thinking more along the lines of accidental overdose, and disposal of body by other person/persons.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[markymint]

Cool thanks for clarifying you haven't seen much about a drugs angle also!

Drug dealers, who operate primarily through mobile phones, will also be some of the most apt at disposing of any evidence. Also when you're picking up drugs, you would typically oblige to certain requests like "turn your phone" off. I can't remember what the specifics were to the Reading stuff, whether it was switch your phone off, park in a certain place or don't wear hoodies - can't quite remember but they definitely had them, and would turn people away if they didn't comply. I realize it's probably a bit strict, but in some capacity, I think it exists, to oblige certain requests of your, even just "a", drug dealer.

In fact, I have an own personal experience of someone saying they can sort me out something if they use my phone. That person and my phone were never seen again... I did try to persue it at the time, but it became clear if I did so I'd probably be looking down the barrel of a gun, so left it. Clearly the phone in Corrie's case has been quite well disposed of, perhaps even expertly so. And even if it was never in the bin lorry, and was perhaps say thrown out the window, there has been plenty of time for the person that did that to return, search, find and make sure it's disposed of properly.

 

[Spurslass63]

The family have confirmed if anyone could go missing and appear a few weeks later with a story to tell it would be Corrie. So maybe he has disappeared previously.

This is the statement that has ALWAYS stuck in my mind throughout this disappearance of Corrie...

What a bizarre thing to say at the very early stages of the investigation.

 

[JamesKing]

Maybe I am getting old, but it seems seriously off to me that a mother would regard her son getting so pissed as to need to fall asleep in a shop doorway for a few hours as something normal.

That's the thing.

So I re watched the interview to see how many times Nicola said or implied that his behaviour was "normal".

What struck me was, not only was it "normal" it was.....
not even remotely unusual and was genuinely, not unusual.

Now you could say "not unusual". But why the emphasis all the time.


Edit. There's no "shock" that he's "in the gutter and half cut".
Okay, maybe that is normal, but when you start emphasising so heavily that this is "absolutely normal", I start to question things.

Is it a shock that he has gone missing ? Of course it is, clearly this is dire situation.... but is the fact that "this has happened" OR is it that "one day this was bound to happen".

And it goes back to "the wait" (which is described as a "sleep").
It IS NOT normal for a 23 year old to "pass out" in a doorway at 1.30am in the morning unless he is absolutely plastered (and he's not) or whacked out of his tree on drugs (his family says he doesn't take them) .... so what is it then ?

...and I don't buy "it's absolutely, genuinely, 110 percent, without a shadow of a doubt...... NORMAL" !

But I bet the family does have an idea.

 

[jessie]

I have no idea what would be a "normal" Friday night out for a young Service guy - but I did feel it looked like rather a sad and lonely evening for him. A lot of wandering around on his own.

 

[markymint]

Absolutely. Who is to say what is considered "normal" (to walk 8 miles back to base) that he isn't doing exactly the same thing on all those occasions, something his family and friends don't actually know anything about, they just consider it a normal practice because he leaves and then turns up the next day (on every other occasion). Only this time it didn't work out as planned. They haven't really said "why" this is normal for him, by which I mean, there's no indication he actually enjoys hiking or anything that would relate to a desire to walk that far, at that time, on any occasion - really.

It isn't normal to sleep in a doorway, no matter how many times that is preached. In my mind if he did that, it was to sleep off some booze so he could drive back, avoiding any walk. If he wanted to walk home, he would've done it straight away (ie after eating kebab). He's loitering with intent of some kind. I don't want to rip on the poor guy, but I think it's prudent to actually quiz his "normal" actions deeper as James King suggests. Sleep in a doorway and then skulk around some bins at 3.30am is not normal behavior in anyone's books, let alone a trained, regimental, routine driven serviceman. Even homeless people go somewhere they feel safe at night.

 

[JamesKing]

Absolutely. Who is to say what is considered "normal" (to walk 8 miles back to base) that he isn't doing exactly the same thing on all those occasions, something his family and friends don't actually know anything about, they just consider it a normal practice because he leaves and then turns up the next day (on every other occasion). Only this time it didn't work out as planned. They haven't really said "why" this is normal for him, by which I mean, there's no indication he actually enjoys hiking or anything that would relate to a desire to walk that far, at that time, on any occasion - really.

It isn't normal to sleep in a doorway, no matter how many times that is preached. In my mind if he did that, it was to sleep off some booze so he could drive back, avoiding any walk. If he wanted to walk home, he would've done it straight away (ie after eating kebab). He's loitering with intent of some kind. I don't want to rip on the poor guy, but I think it's prudent to actually quiz his "normal" actions deeper as James King suggests. Sleep in a doorway and then skulk around some bins at 3.30am is not normal behavior in anyone's books, let alone a trained, regimental, routine driven serviceman. Even homeless people go somewhere they feel safe at night.

I think I can answer the "walk home" thing also.
It was later said by Nicola (3/4 weeks later) that he'd not walked home from Bury.

...but there's another clue to this, in that interview.
Nicola states, when asked was Corrie in the habit of walking home....

"He wasn't in the habit of it, but he had done it ...ermm eh...but...erm.... yes he had done it before"

Why not say "Yes, he had done it before".
That "pause and stutter" was approx 7 seconds longs.

Okay, I have picked the first interview (3 Oct) as there would be more pressure...and the questions from the press would be unknown. But this is a serving police officer non the less.

Why such a long stutter ?

In the video it is at 7.30 to 7.37

 

[JamesKing]

the brothers answers are also interesting, although I can't work them out.

He is asked what happens at the end of a night out ?

"What happens at the end of the night is pff.
If they have all stuck with each other, they've all got a taxi together. If they've arranged to get a lift then get back, it's just take it as it comes"

"If they've arranged to get a lift then get back" ?

What does that mean ?

If they're together, they get a taxi, if not they arrange a lift ?
A lift off who ?
A lift where...and then get back ?

Again, these are just normal questions following on from "is Corrie in the habit of walking home from Bury" and suddenly we're in the land of confusion ?!?!?


Opps ! from 8.13 onwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46UD0lk-c2g

 

[Greater Than]

Please include links when quoting family members' interview answers.

:tyou:

 

[jessie]

the brothers answers are also interesting, although I can't work them out.

He is asked what happens at the end of the night ?

"What happens at the end of the night is pff.
If they have all stuck with each other, they've all got a taxi together. If they've arranged to get a lift then get back, it's just take it as it comes"

"If they've arranged to get a lift then get back" ?

What does that mean ?
A lift off who ?
A lift where...and then get back ?

But Corrie wasn't with his mates at all on that evening was he ? They left the base without him so he drove himself, he

was asked to leave the club before he had made contact with his mates there. Then we have CCTV of his movements

and they don't show any contact with anyone.

Just sounds as if he wasn't/couldn't be included in any group arrangements because he wasn't with a group? So noone

as any idea what he intended doing to get home.

 

[Pinkpuma]

Just been trying to catch up on all the latest info, CCTV pics and comments etc.... I am absolutely confused, it's the most bizarre investigation I've ever heard. Forgive me if I've missed something but have the CCTV images being given in chronological order? There doesn't seem to be any explanation of what happens when so have the times been given? The guy that is seen coming out of Horseshoe area and second man running have not been shown? I hope the people in the pod were clearer on all this that we are. I don't get why the police officer in the pod said the person in that exact area isn't important, why the cars aren't mentioned etc because surely it would make sense for people to be given the whole picture of what and who was seen when instead of little snippets of this person, shadow etc etc (I mean the unidentified ones). It's like they've thrown random bits of footage out and left everyone to guesswork. Please correct me if I've missed something as I didn't go to the pod and may have missed posts on here as so much to catch up on. It's just confusing to me.

Here is where I am now at. When the case first came out I thought it was likely Corrie had an accident walking home drunk. Then when it was made known he couldn't have left the Horseshoe on foot I thought it could be drugs related, it just seemed the most likely explanation considering the type of location. Then family confirmed Corrie isn't involved in drugs. After that I moved on to a likely meet up gone wrong. Straight, gay whatever. I really don't feel the AWOL theory. Corrie's family have also stated he is not gay. My most likely scenario thinking at this point is he is either involved in something to do with drugs or he accidentally saw something he wasn't meant to see by others involved in drugs. It would make sense that there's been so much kept back, if an RAF airman is doing drugs surely they wouldn't want that made public? It could also explain the police officer in the pod saying about the most important person on CCTV not being important (because it's a known drug dealer?) There would also surely be someone 'keeping watch' if a deal was taking place hence the person watching, hiding from the runner? I don't know. It just seems the most plausible explanation for me at this point and maybe he hid that part of his life very well from his family. Maybe his brother knows (hence the long phone call that night) Has anyone heard his brother say much? He always seems quiet to me, not that it means anything of course. Same as his RAF mates out that night, they haven't said anything anywhere from what I can gather? Pure speculation of course as there are no facts and so much is hidden and held back. I may be well off the mark but this is now what I think to be a big possibility. Drugs related, either he is involved or stumbled upon something he was not supposed to witness. Maybe that should be an option in the next poll on here as I wondered why it wasn't mentioned on the last one? Has drugs been ruled out and I've missed something? I only joined here around thread 4.
Open to correction on any of my points.

Sorry for rambling, trying to type fast before it logs me out again....

 

[JamesKing]

Please include links when quoting family members' interview answers.

:tyou:

Added it above.
Sorry.

 

[JamesKing]

But Corrie wasn't with his mates at all on that evening was he ? They left the base without him so he drove himself, he

was asked to leave the club before he had made contact with his mates there. Then we have CCTV of his movements

and they don't show any contact with anyone.

Just sounds as if he wasn't/couldn't be included in any group arrangements because he wasn't with a group? So noone

as any idea what he intended doing to get home.

Yes, he was with his mates.
They had left without him, he drove his car in, then they met up later.

The fact he was with his mates that night, is confirmed by his brother in the 3rd Oct Press Conference (on my previous post)

 

[Pinkpuma]

Just like to add on from my last post that I'm not suspecting the brother of anything, just speculating he may know more than we are led to believe. Long phone call that night whilst Corrie was drinking in the car (did his brother know he was drinking in the car?) Plus a message was sent to his brother whilst in the doorway I believe and his RAF mates who we haven't heard from contacted his brother not mum on the Monday after? I think Corrie's brother and RAF mates might know more about him and what was happening that night, in the lead up to his disappearance, than his mum. Not saying they are not close of course but there are things you'd keep from your mum to avoid her being disappointed in you.