Talk:Death of Corrie McKeague

Page update issues
The joy of all things (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Disappearance of Corrie McKeague
Hi. Not sure how to do this. You have changed things on a page about corrie mckeague. Stating I need a credible source. I am corries mother. I certainly know where my boys were born and raised. Can you please change back all the ammendments I have made. As mine are the facts. Thank you Nicola I did Reply to your e mail. But you have ignored me and now I'm really upset that I have to try to justify to a stranger facts about my child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findcorrie (talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * == Information on Corrie ==The joy of all things (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi; I'm The joy of all things (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC). Can I just say that we are all praying and hoping for you.


 * I created the page about Corrie. The way Wikipedia works with these pages is complicated. Because it is a biography about a living person (BLP), we have to cite and reference our facts rather than just place them and leave them. If you look at the opening statement, it is from the Courier (your local paper) and states where Corrie went to school. It does not state that he was born in Perth. I am not doubting the fact that he was, but we need reliable second and third party sources to state this information, otherwise, because the page is about a living person and there is a danger of libel, we cannot allow uncited facts to go on the page. Unfortunately, Facebook is not classified as a reliable source (WP:SELFSOURCE).


 * This does not change anything that is true and held to be true; only that Wikipedia needs its sources. Please do not be upset about justifying facts about your child/children. No-one is questioning that. What I would say is change what you feel is necessary, but some of it may be deleted because it does not fall under the reliably sourced umbrella. I see under your username that you have deleted some of the sources - please do not do this unless you have some reliable sources to counter these arguments. As a Wikipedia page, it must remain neutral - we just present the facts as they are reported.


 * There is also an issue with WP:COI. If you have something to add, please leave messages on the Talk Page at Talk:Disappearance of Corrie McKeague and we will source the information and cite it for you. Thank you and good luck.


 * Oh, and you can contact me at my talk page which is the blue link after my username. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC

Jim. Thank you for your concern of libel. It does not bother me one bit. There is not a single thing I have written that is not a fact that if somone should ever try to take me to court over they can see who wrote it and I have no problem proving I am corries mother and what I am saying is true. So if you would leave the changes I have made I would appreciate it. If you look on the Web page www.findcorrie.co.uk there are articles saved there. If you look for superintendent Katie Elliott she stood beside me while we were interviewed for bbc. Itv and bfbs. The most up to date interviews. Nicola


 * I'm glad you are unconcerned. It is Wikipedia that is wary of being libelous against you and your family. Imagine some troll were to put something unpleasant on this page; we have a duty to remove it and stay within the parameters of UK Law. I will look for the BFBS source now. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * PS - It is not Jim you are dealing with, Jim asked me to contact you as I created the page. I am The joy of all things (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added a reference to the review on third party involvement evidence and removed the full stop to make the sentence flow better.The joy of all things (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

DMY dates
Hello and thank you for acknowledging my recent edit. However, I don't understand your polite request to use DMY format, as I indeed stated "10 January 2017", which is date-month-year. I am British so would certainly never use MDY. Thanks for clarifying. talk
 * Thanks for the communication. However, it was not that you put the date in the text of the article (which was correct BTW) but this where the dates in the citation were incorrect. Also, when starting a new topic on talk pages, please use the New Section tab which will render a new heading. I have inserted one here with relevance for our conversation. Thanks for the input and I hope that you are having a good day. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct capitalisation of name?
What is the correct capitalisation of McKeague / Mckeague? I see it given both ways in various sources. Any definitive answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.20.206 (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The RAF and BBC list him as McKeague, which follows the same format as other Mac's and Mc's - McDonalds, MacColl etc. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The BBC cite him as Mckeague with a lower case K (at least sometimes, see eg http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-39218855 . See also http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/02/mac-mc-surnames-often-contain-second-capital-letter/ and http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/29450/why-is-the-letter-after-mc-in-names-capitalized - the capital letter following the Mac/Mc is not automatically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.20.206 (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Suffolk Police use "McKeague", as do the official missing posters. Uses of the lower case "k" are likely typos that escaped proof reading. Keri (t &middot;&#32;c) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good spot, though - I must admit I hadn't noticed, but the latest report by the Beeb has it in a lower case K. The joy of all things (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * BBC typos are increasing :D I think the most common typo I notice in news articles is "solider" for "soldier". Keri (t &middot;&#32;c) 15:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Still alive?
What is the protocol for missing persons who are never found? Is it always assumed that they are still alive? Is there any time limit? No, User:The joy of all things I have to admit that I'm not "on the search team". I think it's pretty clear there isn't a search team any more. The word "is" still appears as the sixth word in the first sentence of this article. But the present tense is elsewhere in short supply. I was prompted to change that to "was" by the statement: ""Nichola Urquhart stated on Facebook that "This can really, devastatingly, only mean one thing"." I don't believe we can expect an inquest, can we? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nichola Urquhart's statement was in response to the police admitting that a miscalculation had been made in the weight of the bin lorry. There is an active dig ongoing at a landfill site at Barton Mills where it is expected his body will be found. If it is found, there will be an inquest and this article will be moved into the Solved Cases section on missing persons. If his body is found then there will be a coroner's inquest to determine how he died; but until he is found, or until his body is found, he remains an is not a was. If you have startling insight that he is dead then cite it. All missing people are initially given a tag of BLP, so they remain in the present tense unless a body is found or that the police assume death. Lord Lucan remained an is until quite recently when he ws declared officially dead by a court. McKeague has been missing nine months - whilst it seems highly unlikely given the nature of his disappearance, he may just turn up alive. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry no, I don't have any "startling insight". Do you think the active dig, ongoing at a landfill site at Barton Mills, should be mentioned in the article? Together with a WP:RS source that "it is expected his body will be found"? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the Investigation section of the article. It does not mention that they expect his body to be found but does say they expected the search to last ten weeks; that was in February and they are still searching. The joy of all things (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My calendar would suggest that ten weeks after 13 February was 24 April. I guess it's proving slower than expected. If there is a source saying that they expect to find a body, I think it should be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen an RS to state they expect to find a body, just a belief that his body is there. Regards. The joy of all things (talk)
 * My interpretation of Nichola Urquhart's statement is that she shares that belief. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but Facebook is not a reliable source and our interpretation is WP:OR. The joy of all things (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This BBC source from 5 June says that the search was being expanded. A spokesman said: "The work is constantly being reviewed and, as the search team are still finding items from the right time frame that are identifiable as coming from the town, the search will continue on a week by week basis." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It's now three years and five months since the disappearance. Isn't there a time limit, after which, for legal purposes, a missing person is presumed dead? Unlike Lord Lucan, the circumstances suggest that McKeague is dead. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)
 * The RAF have not listed him as dead, though I am informed (not reliably) that his pay has been frozen. Until someone with a reliable cite confirms widespread belief that he is dead, we cannot make those assumptions. Take the Disappearance of Timothy MacColl. The Royal Navy declared him dead after two years; ergo, the sources state he is dead and we list him as so.


 * The UK law is that after seven years, families can apply to have their loved ones listed as dead, (Declared death in absentia). This has seen a new law introduced, where incontrovertible evidence suggests that person is dead, and the family can apply for a presumption of death certificate. So in my opinion (and that's all that it is), if we state he is dead, that is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. I would suppose another way forward is a consensus vote (it's obvious which way my vote would go, but I will abide by any outcome);however, it is hard to see how such a vote cannot apply to other missing person articles. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for clarifying that. Yes, Timothy MacColl, who disappeared in May 2012, looks like a similar case. I think it's somewhat unlikely that "reliable sources will confirm widespread belief that he is dead", as McKeague's story has now largely dropped below the news horizon. No objections to a consensus vote. We need not worry about other missing person articles. I'd say it would probably be inappropriate to try and develop any global policy for this, as circumstances will vary widely between cases. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * looks like they are going to have an inquest into his death. However, I have not seen any declaration of death, maybe the inquest will determine that? The joy of all things (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we put in the lead what the prevailing theory is?
From what I've read in news articles, the theory is that he slept in a bin lorry but the bin lorry then drove off and dumped him at a landfill site, killing him. It's hard to understand that from this article though, it's never directly said in the body or the lead. 2.102.184.212 (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think more than £1 million would have been spent (by May 2017) if that had not been the main theory. His mother Nicola Urquhart has asked of the police "how can they just leave him there?", so she must also believe that's what probably happened. I agree that both the article and the lead should make this clearer. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've heard a different theory, but similar to above. I would suggest that unless there is unimpeachable sourcing, we wait developments. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the different theory, that you've heard, have as much coverage in the media as the bin-lorry theory? The police seem pretty convinced, as they've even now said that Mckeague was "known to sleep in rubbish on a night out". Unless something definite is actually found, I can't see that we'll ever get any "unimpeachable sourcing". I'm not suggesting this can be prevented as fact, merely as the theory which has attracted widest and longest support. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Bin, rather than Bin-Lorry, is what I heard, the presumption being that the emptying of the bin into the bin-lorry was causative. (I have no sources to propose). -Roxy the dog. bark 17:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see. I'm not sure the police have any firm idea on that. Even if his body were to be found at the Barton Mills landfill site, I suspect that we would be no nearer determining the exact place or time of his death. He could possibly have died in the bin before the lorry got there, at the time the bin was collected, during the journey, at the time the waste was dumped, or only at the site some time later. But I don't see any other theory being seriously investigated other than that this was his final journey. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Problem is, I'd like to be able to give a nice clear answer to the question of this thread, but I don't think there is one. We run the risk of WP:OR or SYNthesis if we join the dots. That isn't much help, is it? -Roxy the dog. bark 18:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the opening section could at least summarise better where the investigations have led, and not be quite so dramatically vague. £1M is not a small sum to spend on a missing persons enquiry. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have amended the lead as a BBC source states that they believe he was crushed by the bin lorry. Feel free to peruse and amend further as I am sure it can be extended and refined somewhat. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, The joy of all things. I think that's a huge improvement and perfectly fair. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ta - still working on it though.....The joy of all things (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I do read the BBC, could have seen it there. More important, I think good work has been done by you guys. -Roxy the dog. bark 20:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Drunk
It is noted in the article that McKeague was drunk but no real effort is made to say how drunk he was. He seems to have been drinking at the RAF base, initially. The video suggests that he was considerably drunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.100.21 (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no reliable source stating the level of his perceived inebriation. Also, since he drove himself into town, the debate about any drinking beforehand is exactly that; a debate. No reliable source can confirm any of this and so would be wild speculation. That is why it is not in. That and WP:OR. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article says this: "The doorman at Flex recalls asking McKeague to leave because he was too drunk to stay." The source that supports this, a piece in the East Anglian Daily Times, quotes 20-year old Will Hook, the bouncer: "'He wasn’t too drunk but was worth keeping an eye on. He carried on drinking and got progressively worse. He was too intoxicated to still be there.' ... Mr Hook emphasised Corrie was not causing any trouble, but had simply been too drunk to stay." So I think the article is fair and proportionate. Do you have other sources which add to or contradict this in some way? Even if you do, what is to be gained by adding them? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirect requests
Redirects were requested, but I've declined them as not NPOV. Articles_for_creation/Redirects Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you prepared to tell us what they were? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. There's a link, there's a list.  If you want to disagree, then I suggest discussing it here. "Death of" isn't actually pejorative POV, but still isn't needed, and the rest are right out, without evidence to support them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I'd have to agree on all counts. As a (somewhat) related question, when does a missing person become officially declared to be "dead"? I think it's fair to say that his family members have assumed for some time that he is dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but I vaguely recall that UK law is that you have to get a coroner to rule on this (it isn't automatic) and they will do it because there's either evidence (you were seen to fall overboard, a pair of empty, smoking boots were left behind, or it's simply a long time (7 years?) ) - but you can't just presume on your own, and the time allowed without other evidence is long. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Other notable cases spring to mind (although I don't think there is evidence he ever slept in a wheelie bin). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lucan was odd because he was skint, so there was no inheritance to fight over. The rules for when probate can be granted in such a case have been polished over the years and are fairly generous to descendants. However inheriting the title was much harder, as peers don't often vanish, and still couldn't be done for decades after he'd disappeared until there was a law change about 5 years ago. There's also the canoeist, where his death was legally accepted quite early on, and insurance was paid out. The Tichborne Claimant was spotted at a steampunk event, just recently, and had cartes de visite to prove it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, one can find all sorts of unsavoury characters at these steampunk jamborees. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Bin lorry weight
Has there been any reliably sourced discussion of what went wrong with the bin lorry weight calculation, and why it took the police so long to realise a mistake had been made? It sounds like the police had, perhaps not surprisingly, uncovered fairly fast (with a month or less) that his phone had travelled along a route similar to the bin lorry, at a speed that implied it was being driven, and that there were very few vehicles that he could have gotten in to. So it would be quite important to be certain that there was no way this weight could be wrong. To be fair, searching the site was always going to be a daunting task. But it would seem reasonably seem easier if there wasn't several months of extra rubbish (and probably several months less of decomposition) suggesting it may be something people have asked about. Nil Einne (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The section under Landfill search reads like this;
 * "On 1 March, a 26-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of attempting to pervert the course of justice. He was not the driver of the bin lorry nor a relative of McKeague. On 7 March, the suspect was released and the police stated that they believed he had genuinely made a mistake and that the charge had been dropped. In conjunction with this, police revealed that an error had been made in the calculations of the weight of the bin lorry and that it was close to 100 kg. Urquhart stated on Facebook that "This can really, devastatingly, only mean one thing". "


 * The initial contact between the police and the waste company inferred that the weight carried by the bin was significantly more than what McKeague would weigh. Six months later, a miscalculation was revealed that determined he could have been in the bin truck. Prior to this, police knew the route that his mobile took, but it died before the landfill site was reached. With this in mind, police were looking elsewhere rather than the landfill. He disappeared six months before the landfill search was started and a forensic expert later stated that as would have been crushed and the remains decomposing for six months, not much would be found, a fact echoed by his father in a recent Facebook post.


 * Hope this helps? regards. The joy of all things (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi The joy of all things. The way the section under Landfill search is currently written makes it appear that the arrest was in some way connected to the bin lorry (although not the driver). The text even says: "In conjunction with this, police revealed... " So were these two aspects indeed connected, or is that just the way the police statement, and this the article text, is worded? Or is there no way of knowing either way? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote it and my interpretation is that the bin truck company/waste disposal provider was contacted by the police and asked how much weight they had picked up from the bin in the horseshoe area of Bury St Edmunds. They initially stated that the bin truck had collected just 15 kilograms. Six months later, after the police reinterviewed the bin company, it transpired the weight was closer to 100 kilograms which led them to charge someone with perverting the course of justice, charges that were later dropped when it was determined that there was no malice behind the information supplied to the police.


 * The 'In conjunction with this" statement is my writing. Basically, at the time that they revealed they had dropped the charges, they also announced the mistake in weight assessment. More than happy that it undergoes a re-write if the text is not accessible. How about


 * "At the same time, police revealed that an error had been made in the calculations of the weight of the bin lorry and that it was close to 220 pounds (100 kg)? Thoughts? Regards. The joy of all things (talk)


 * Yes, maybe. The bottom line question that springs to mind - who was arrested and why? I'm guessing these details were not made public. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No they were not; I am guessing someone who managed the site, but because it is not explicitly stated who, I did not speculate. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess we'll just have to leave the reader to speculate, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)