The Mystery of Corrie McKeague

Andrew wrote:Welcome Costello.

AWAL....? I must admit, Absent With A Lad has crossed my mind too.

It certainly is a baffling one, that's for sure. TTWO is the resident expert here on it all and I just post up links and talk crap.

I'm actually surprised that more members here haven't shown much of an interest/or comment on it...

I sincerely hope one way or another the whole thing gets resolved soon.

I meant to say AWOL Andrew. There are just too many 'obvious inconsistencies' it beggars belief! This case is really up there with the McCann case in my opinion.

@TTWO - just read that comment on the link you provided.... Not heard about the 'stashed possessions' bit before? Has that ever been mentioned by the family? Or is this his 'inside knowledge' bit do you reckon?

@Costello - yes I knew you meant AWOL really

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

costello wrote:I spent most of last night reading all the posts on this thread.I haven't paid too much attention to this case from the beginning if I am honest. But something is not right here, in fact many things. My initial thoughts were that Corrie had gone AWAL with the help of a relative, now I'm not so sure.

There is a theory on Websleuths here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?326291-UK-Corrie-McKeague-23-Bury-St-Edmunds-24-September-2016-14/page12&p=13060320#post13060320

Post #1111

The poster seems to have some degree of inside knowledge reading between the lines of other posts.

Edit @Andrew. Far from a expert but have (tried) to follow the case from the beginning. Too many twists to make head or tale of this.

Thanks TTWO.
Any ideas on the last sentence on the last post in the link.
"The AWOL thing,there is a valid reason for it,but not yet referenced by MSM so cannot discuss"

costello wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

costello wrote:I spent most of last night reading all the posts on this thread.I haven't paid too much attention to this case from the beginning if I am honest. But something is not right here, in fact many things. My initial thoughts were that Corrie had gone AWAL with the help of a relative, now I'm not so sure.

There is a theory on Websleuths here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?326291-UK-Corrie-McKeague-23-Bury-St-Edmunds-24-September-2016-14/page12&p=13060320#post13060320

Post #1111

The poster seems to have some degree of inside knowledge reading between the lines of other posts.

Edit @Andrew. Far from a expert but have (tried) to follow the case from the beginning. Too many twists to make head or tale of this.

Thanks TTWO.
Any ideas on the last sentence on the last post in the link.
"The AWOL thing,there is a valid reason for it,but not yet referenced by MSM so cannot discuss"

Yes I did notice that but haven't bothered asking about it as they can't answer due to the rules over there. Seems the poster has some local/inside knowledge but until the MSM publish (even if the Sun!) it can't be discussed.

I still think he was the Cornhill Hoodie!

Another thing about the phone found.....I read the post last night it said "I have found a phone I think its a Nokia".
Then today reports from MSM and Uncle T saying it is only the back of a phone
But now Uncle T has changed his statement to say it was a 'damaged' phone found - now a damaged phone is much better than just the back of a phone imo. A definitive answer about something sometime would be good.
I shall dream of phones I think.......

Bampots wrote:I still think he was the Cornhill Hoodie!

Yes I'm thinking along the same lines Bampots. I have just been reading on the True Crime Discussion site, interesting how people seem to have very different views of Corrie McKeague.

I just found myself altering the contrast/colours and basically anything I could on the Cornhill hoodie photo. And making a bit of a pigs ear of it as well:



The body shape to me looks wrong for it being Corrie. He appears more on the stockier side where as to me the hoodie chap seems quite slim and lanky...

Hard to tell, I know through a still of crappy CCTV footage (is that really the best they got?). He does look like he's carrying a sort of military style backpack though on his back and also a skateboard under his arm...

costello wrote:

Bampots wrote:I still think he was the Cornhill Hoodie!

Yes I'm thinking along the same lines Bampots. I have just been reading on the True Crime Discussion site, interesting how people seem to have very different views of Corrie McKeague.

Don't have a link to this other forum do you? Would like to get another take about this case. There is a bit of unreast over at Websleuths this evening so nothing much about the case is (or can be, really) being discussed!

bluebell wrote:Another thing about the phone found.....I read the post last night it said "I have found a phone I think its a Nokia".
Then today reports from MSM and Uncle T saying it is only the back of a phone      
But now Uncle T has changed his statement to say it was a 'damaged' phone found - now a damaged phone is much better than just the back of a phone imo.     A definitive answer about something sometime would be good.          
I shall dream of phones I think.......

I didn't realise until this afternoon, after I posted news links, that it was someone posting it to the FB group to announce it rather than calling the Police directly.

Probably some twit from the facebook group deliberately taking the back off his/her old phone, dumping it and then contacting FB for attention purposes. Might've known it would turn out to be a load of tosh as soon as the FB link was mentioned...

Could you copy or link Uncle Tony's - it's now a damaged phone comment..... As that seems a load of tosh as well from him.

Cheers.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

costello wrote:

Bampots wrote:I still think he was the Cornhill Hoodie!

Yes I'm thinking along the same lines Bampots. I have just been reading on the True Crime Discussion site, interesting how people seem to have very different views of Corrie McKeague.

Don't have a link to this other forum do you? Would like to get another take about this case. There is a bit of unreast over at Websleuths this evening so nothing much about the case is (or can be, really) being discussed!

I've just tried to post the link but it doesn't work. It's Reddit.com : Corrie McKeague and the running man.

I was going to also ask the same question as TTWO.

This one then:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueCrimeDiscussion/comments/5f8ldh/corrie_mckeague_and_the_running_man_a_uk_cctv/

Andrew wrote:I was going to also ask the same question as TTWO.

This one then:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueCrimeDiscussion/comments/5f8ldh/corrie_mckeague_and_the_running_man_a_uk_cctv/

Cheers Andrew. Interesting comment near the end re-going AWOL.

costello wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

costello wrote:

Bampots wrote:I still think he was the Cornhill Hoodie!

Yes I'm thinking along the same lines Bampots. I have just been reading on the True Crime Discussion site, interesting how people seem to have very different views of Corrie McKeague.

Don't have a link to this other forum do you? Would like to get another take about this case. There is a bit of unreast over at Websleuths this evening so nothing much about the case is (or can be, really) being discussed!

I've just tried to post the link but it doesn't work. It's Reddit.com : Corrie McKeague and the running man.

Cheers. I managed to get the link to work. I had read that page a few weeks ago but there are some new posts now. Poster 'StrayOnMain' has some interesting things to say.

I still can't see where this case is going to go but the almost complete silence from the Police speaks volumes to me. They know a lot more I think. The family have been saying everything not being done is entirely down to lack of resources but I'm far from convinced. They aren't doing those things because they know better and just aren't sharing with the family. Case in point is yesterdays bombshell news. Today the Police suddenly search the second horseshoe? What is that all about?

One thing I would guess about Corrie is that he wouldn't be ready to be a dad and could see him panicking after finding out. We know his mum payed for and owns his car (he crashed his previous car a few weeks before), his phone is owned/payed for by mum and his passport is renewed each year by his mum. This tells me he can't do all those boring things adults have to do so how would he react to becoming a dad?

It's a bit confusing that site, Costello. All the posts seem to be muddled up with the dates.... Making it hard to follow...

Can't actually see the AWOL one you mentioned but will have another quick look...

Andrew wrote:It's a bit confusing that site, Costello. All the posts seem to be muddled up with the dates.... Making it hard to follow...

Can't actually see the AWOL one you mentioned but will have another quick look...

Per Ardua Per Unusual  7 points 3 days ago.

costello wrote:

Andrew wrote:It's a bit confusing that site, Costello. All the posts seem to be muddled up with the dates.... Making it hard to follow...

Can't actually see the AWOL one you mentioned but will have another quick look...

Per Ardua Per Unusual  7 points 3 days ago.

This.. (if it's allowed to be C + P to here).

QUESTION: What do you do if one of your servicemen is being treated; both medicinally and through therapy; to the extent he is barred from participating in any duties involving a weapon? You can't discharge him because the illness did not pre-date him signing up. Answer- You make him create a reason to be discharged, such as AWOL.
Your plan goes off without a hitch, your serviceman draws enough attention to himself on a night out that everybody remembers him and also how happy he was etc. You deliver an ending scenario which means AWOL cannot be called immediately.
But then a local sets up a Facebook page and the plan starts to fall to pieces. Serviceman coming back starts to be an issue, too many people involved. You've fortunately got an ex military intelligence uncle running interference and guiding the mumsnet brigade down a certain path, but still, your serviceman cannot now just re-appear.
So you resolve to bring in a stooge company, very obviously a front for an "M" or Cheltenham Donut. Who will remarkably "find" your serviceman, in a situation that returns him a hero. All on less resources and less access than an entire police force.
Oh and for good measure you obtain a D Notice preventing reporting for the first 8 weeks.
Shame for the base commander though, he's found a desk job somewhere....
permalinkembed

... That's certainly an angle that hasn't entered my thought process.

Andrew wrote:

bluebell wrote:Another thing about the phone found.....I read the post last night it said "I have found a phone I think its a Nokia".
Then today reports from MSM and Uncle T saying it is only the back of a phone      
But now Uncle T has changed his statement to say it was a 'damaged' phone found - now a damaged phone is much better than just the back of a phone imo.     A definitive answer about something sometime would be good.          
I shall dream of phones I think.......

I didn't realise until this afternoon, after I posted news links, that it was someone posting it to the FB group to announce it rather than  calling the Police directly.

Probably some twit from the facebook group deliberately taking the back off his/her old phone, dumping it and then contacting FB for attention purposes. Might've known it would turn out to be a load of tosh as soon as the FB link was mentioned...

Could you copy or link Uncle Tony's - it's now a damaged phone comment..... As that seems a load of tosh as well from him.

Cheers.

I think(hope)  this link works Andrew.  Should be the link to Uncle Tony's post on facebook saying it is a damaged phone.    fingers crossed  my link works 'cos I'm hopeless at this.       p.s. sorry took me ages to find it again.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209980531543823&set=p.10209980531543823&type=3&theater

Many thanks, bluebell.

So a damaged phone or the back of one?

Can nobody differentiate?

Seems a simple task to me....

Andrew wrote:Many thanks, bluebell.

So a damaged phone or the back of one?

Can nobody differentiate?

Seems a simple task to me....

Yeah, it's a bit like when I found that damaged Ford Fiesta. Well, I say damaged Ford Fiesta. It was actually a hubcap in a layby.

I think the police have a good idea what has happened to Corrie. They can't come out and say this in case they are wrong. The family are a) Not accepting the obvious, probably naturally and b) because of their self perceived specia position peed off that the police aren't involving them more

@ unreorganised -

@ PMR - yes, I would agree that the police know a bit more than they're letting on and their line of thinking is the opposite of the family. Hence the rather public fall out/criticisms etc.

unreorganised wrote:

Andrew wrote:Many thanks, bluebell.

So a damaged phone or the back of one?

Can nobody differentiate?

Seems a simple task to me....

Yeah, it's a bit like when I found that damaged Ford Fiesta. Well, I say damaged Ford Fiesta. It was actually a hubcap in a layby.

     

Still can't read where this case is going except it is more than just a missing person.

Uncle Tony has been making posts on the true crime Reddit page and says he has seen pictures of the found phone and it is more complete than just the rear cover as reported by Police/media? Why would the police lie about this?

Also a poster on Websleuths has said the ex girlfriend of Corrie that was featured in early reports has now unfollowed the Find Corrie page since the announcement of a pregnant new girlfriend. I did a quick search and it seems that both girls went to the same school around the same time?

This phone business is weird then. Mind you the whole case is weird, so hardly a surprise.

So does Uncle Tony think this phone could actually be Corrie's if he's seen the pics?