Trevor Deely case - new witness

snotboogie · 06-12-2019 6:13pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

But why ?

Why go to the bother of moving the body of a guy that has no links to criminally and that many presume died by tragic accident on the way home from a Christmas party on a wet night ?

This is not Joe Peschi burying bodies in Goodfellas and having to dig them up again.

As others have said if there was an altercation and Trevor died as a result of it why go to all the bother.

You are really asking why somebody would move a body after a murder? Obviously the person is going to the bother to avoid a murder conviction.

That's not reserved for American gangster movies, Franno did it in love hate too

Snickers Man · 06-12-2019 6:33pm

Raconteuse wrote: »

My brother lived and worked in the area at the time and he said you'd go to sleep at night seeing Trevor's face. Excellent work by those who loved him.

This is true. I live in the area. Those posters were there for years. On every tree and lamppost.

As an aside. I am amused by the depiction of the area then, and now, as a seedy dangerous vice-ridden cesspit. True, you used to see a lot of particularly unalluring prostitutes plying their trade on the canal. They were there for years.

I believe the canal was advantageous for two reasons: given the number of bridges cars could circle around for ages looking for suitable, er, merchandise. And also, the canal itself was a boundary between two police districts so that if a cop was moving in to harass or arrest a girl she could just toddle over the bridge and thumb her nose at him because he couldn't follow her. That's all gone now of course. I can't remember the last time I saw a steetwalker. Mobile phones and social media have made it much easier to procure services, without having to drive around in the freezing cold and pouring rain.

And yes. Where you get hookers you get some dodgy creepy male hangers on, both in terms of the girls' management and her clentele. But the girls themslves were grand. Never a bother

Omackeral · 06-12-2019 6:38pm

sugarman wrote: »

I think the new information they received 2 years ago was pretty credible, the person waived the €100k reward and told them on back of a guilty conscious where he was allegedly taken to, what happened (shot) and where he was said to be buried. I mean, why else would anyone make that kind of thing up?

Similar happened in the case of Marioara Rostas, an innocent 18 year old girl. There was no 100K up for a reward but a person was granted immunity in the case and took the Gardai to find her body in a shallow grave in the Wicklow Mountains. Nobody was ever convicted of the murder but the family got some aspect of closure from it and were taken by the Gardai to the site and prayed there.

As a side note, I've heard the same name mentioned as being involved in both cases. I won't pretend to know if this individual had anything to with Trevor's fate but I'd be certain enough re: Marioara.

Omackeral · 06-12-2019 6:41pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

I believe the canal was advantageous for two reasons: given the number of bridges cars could circle around for ages looking for suitable, er, merchandise. And also, the canal itself was a boundary between two police districts so that if a cop was moving in to harass or arrest a girl she could just toddle over the bridge and thumb her nose at him because he couldn't follow her. That's all gone now of course. I can't remember the last time I saw a steetwalker. Mobile phones and social media have made it much easier to procure services, without having to drive around in the freezing cold and pouring rain.

Across State Lines, :pac: He could only arrest her if he had his hat on.

BDI · 06-12-2019 6:50pm

Omackeral wrote: »

Across State Lines, :pac: He could only arrest her if he had his hat on.

If she has a dump across a district line the garda is not allowed cover her with his coat

KWAG2019 · 06-12-2019 6:52pm

snotboogie wrote: »

You are really asking why somebody would move a body after a murder? Obviously the person is going to the bother to avoid a murder conviction.

Yes we are asking that because it reveals a good deal. If you think of some of the ways in which people meet violent death and bodies are discovered then you will see that moving a body doesn't happen that often. When it does there is something to lose; perhaps as you say a conviction for murder is enough that people want to avoid but the act of moving a dead body is itself risky and may increase chances of discovery.

Destruction of evidence is another possibility be it DNA or ballistic. DNA evidence was in use I think from the late 80's but I could be a few years off the mark there.

Staying with the question though is interesting: why not just leave remains on the street? What links the remains to the attacker? Was it necessary to move remains from a building rather than a street?

And why go to those risks a second time which is what the poster was referring to? It seems unlikely that it would be done a second time.

TwoMonthsOff · 06-12-2019 6:52pm

BDI wrote: »

If she has a dump across a district line the garda is not allowed cover her with his coat

But can he give her his hat to sh*t in?

Coconut12 · 06-12-2019 9:41pm

I was out that night and the weather was horrendous. I also went to the Spar on Baggot Street the next night after Buck Waleys and it was indeed open at 3/4am and serving food. There is no plausible theory for him going to the Spar on Bath Avenue that night in that weather .

Muahahaha · 06-12-2019 9:46pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I do wonder if the chapelizod thing was real. Maybe he was there but the people involved moved him, knowing full well that someone could talk at any moment.

I think the Chapelizod thing was real in so far as it was a dumping ground for criminals.I dont think the informant was out to lead them on a wild goose chase, its more likely he named a main suspect and said he knew him to bury drugs/money/guns on that site. With the forensic expertise available to Gardai if a body had of been moved recently they would have known. Also guessing they had a cadaver dog with them who could have picked up a scent.

BDI wrote: »

Some bizarre theories here.

If somebody hit him in their car why would they get out, put him inside and drive off without anybody noticing?

Why not drive off. Rediculous.

You dispose of a body when it can be tied back to you. Even gangland people shoot people in the street and leave them there.

He either went in the water or went to a place that if he was found would link him to the killer.

Its definitely strange that a killer would have gone to all the hassle of moving the body. It was back in 1999 so the fear of DNA wasnt around for them. But then you've to balance that against what seems to be the Gardais belief that this did happen. The Chapelizod search lasted 6 weeks and had dozens of Gardai working on it, they put huge resources and effort into it and you can only assume they were operating off credible information that matched up to other pieces of information they have.

06-12-2019 10:01pm

In gangland, a shooter steals a car. Then shoots his victim. Speeds away in stolen car and burns the car out. Then gets into another car and casually drives away. No evidence to be found, unless they mess up burning out the stolen car.

In Trevors case, it probably wasn’t pre meditated. A chance encounter they say. They couldn’t shoot someone and cause a scene and then be found or spotted in their own car. It’s possible they had to dispose of the body. Maybe he ended up in chapelizod.

The person responsible was probably afraid of getting ratted out so moved the body to a different location.

Not suggesting this is what happened, but just pointing out that there are many reasons why a person might want to get a rid of the body of the person they just murdered.

KWAG2019 · 06-12-2019 10:24pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think the Chapelizod thing was real in so far as it was a dumping ground for criminals.I dont think the informant was out to lead them on a wild goose chase, its more likely he named a main suspect and said he knew him to bury drugs/money/guns on that site. With the forensic expertise available to Gardai if a body had of been moved recently they would have known. Also guessing they had a cadaver dog with them who could have picked up a scent.

Its definitely strange that a killer would have gone to all the hassle of moving the body. It was back in 1999 so the fear of DNA wasnt around for them. But then you've to balance that against what seems to be the Gardais belief that this did happen. The Chapelizod search lasted 6 weeks and had dozens of Gardai working on it, they put huge resources and effort into it and you can only assume they were operating off credible information that matched up to other pieces of information they have.

DNA was around since late 80’s.

andekwarhola · 06-12-2019 11:04pm

Pheonix10 wrote: »

It is a bit strange to go into work on your way home at 3am and check emails. Fair enough if he grabbed the brolly and left. It's a bit perplexing.

Probably mentioned before - certainly was on the old thread - but it was 19 years ago. In this era of smartphones, its easy to forget that email was a lot less ubiquitous then. Probably some people had blackberry phones but the majority of mobile phones would have been basic I would say. I had something similar to this at the time

I worked in IT at the time but didht actually have home internet. I wouldn't say that was uncommon. I could well imagine myself popping in to check email or similar if my route home took me past a still-open office like Trevor.

06-12-2019 11:13pm

People should really read up on the case and get a good understanding of the case.

He didn’t go to the office to send emails at 3am. He went to get an umbrella as it was lashing rain.

While at the office, he saw his friend that was working night shift and asked him if he wanted to go for a tea. His friend said yes but needed a few mins to finish what he was doing.

Trevor logged on to his PC for a few mins while waiting. They then had tea together.

Day Lewin · 06-12-2019 11:14pm

The question of "why remove the body from the scene?" is a good one and repays pondering.

If the crime took place in a room that was being used for eg, entrapment, drug supply, or intimidation, it might well be that the owners of the premises insisted on any such signs of crime being removed.
And it WAS the dead of night and filthy weather: easier to do it right there and then, than be stuck with the awkwardness of disposal later.

This all sounds a bit grim: yet, it appears to be that the Gardaí are thinking along these lines...at least, I think that is what the newspapers are implying.

Its kind of heart-breaking to think about it in such detail - the poor lad, and his poor family - I still hope for some justice, or a decent ending, for them.

noodler · 06-12-2019 11:15pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People should really read up on the case and get a good understanding of the case.

He didn’t go to the office to send emails at 3am. He went to get an umbrella as it was lashing rain.

While at the office, he saw his friend that was working night shift and asked him if he wanted to go for a tea. His friend said yes but needed a few mins to finish what he was doing.

Trevor logged on to his PC for a few mins while waiting. They then had tea together.

Can't link to the Irish times three part series enough times

KWAG2019 · 06-12-2019 11:17pm

The IT thread is essential. After the initial GARDA announcement about the witness it really is just wait and see.

andekwarhola · 06-12-2019 11:17pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People should really read up on the case and get a good understanding of the case. .

Sorry Dad.

tdf7187 · 06-12-2019 11:17pm

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

That footage has the only image of the MIB looking directly in through the gate.

Why would they not have released that at the time? Or mention that someone, other than colleagues, waited there?

All that was said was that Trevor had a “brief conversation” with an unknown man at the gate.

It’s truly bizarre that for so many years it was never mentioned that a guy waited for 30-40 minutes, moves when TD arrives, follows him to the gate, speaks to him, waits some more and then leaves. The man didn’t appear to have any interest in the work colleagues when they arrive and leave.

Whether the MIB was involved in Trevor’s disappearance or not, he was certainly behaving in a very suspicious manner.

Yes it's very strange, not the kind of location you would wait for a taxi or even to beg for spare change, there are plenty of other better locations nearby for that. Now that I think of it IIRC there was a taxi strike on that night but not the kind of location you would wait to hail a car if you were stuck for a lift home. Then the second guy who appears to follow Trevor after he leaves the bank, also suspicious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLXEME-G0A8&feature=youtu.be

dark crystal · 06-12-2019 11:25pm

farmchoice wrote: »

just on this, its actually much more difficult then people imagine to find bodies in rivers and other bodies of water.
where i live now we have a river and unfortunately people occasionally commit suicide by jumping in. sometimes the bodies are found and sometimes even though diving teams are in the river within 6 hours the bodies are never found. recently one search went on for 5 days with a helicopter with specialized equipment and diving team every day for 3 weeks, teams searched the river banks for months and the body was never found. the diving teams even came back the next spring and still nothing.

i'm not talking about the canal, if he went into the canal he would have been found. either the canal basin or the dodder. back then the only reason anyone would have gone near the canal basin was if the planned to jump in.
in fact it was such a run down deserted part of the city a lot of people didn't even know it was there. unlike today nobody ever went near it.

If he went into the water, wouldn't his phone have gone dead straight away? From what I've read, his phone continued to ring for several days after he went missing.

noodler · 06-12-2019 11:31pm

dark crystal wrote: »

If he went into the water, wouldn't his phone have gone dead straight away? From what I've read, his phone continued to ring for several days after he went missing.

Irish times series didn't say that.

Fr Tod Umptious · 06-12-2019 11:32pm

dark crystal wrote: »

If he went into the water, wouldn't his phone have gone dead straight away? From what I've read, his phone continued to ring for several days after he went missing.

That's completely inconclusive.
His sister in the UK rang him on the Saturday, she is not sure if it rang out, went straight to voicemail etc.
Same as others

KWAG2019 · 06-12-2019 11:33pm

dark crystal wrote: »

If he went into the water, wouldn't his phone have gone dead straight away? From what I've read, his phone continued to ring for several days after he went missing.

Not if he and his phone were apart.
He was reported missing after the weekend.
His sister said she phoned him over the weekend and the phone rang.

Asitis2019 · 07-12-2019 12:00am

I've been rereading the Irish Times articles from 2015

One thing that has always puzzled me over the years about this case is that it has always been assumed that he never made it home on the morning of December 8. Has it ever been disclosed why this is the case? For example, was his apartment examined? What about his flatmates?

It is the one thing about the case that seems odd - that there has been no attention to his place of residence and his flatmates.

Omackeral · 07-12-2019 12:05am

Asitis2019 wrote: »

I've been rereading the Irish Times articles from 2015

One thing that has always puzzled me over the years about this case is that it has always been assumed that he never made it home on the morning of December 8. Has it ever been disclosed why this is the case? For example, was his apartment examined? What about his flatmates?

It is the one thing about the case that seems odd - that there has been no attention to his place of residence and his flatmates.

If there were no clothes on the floor or in the washing machine/wash basket from the night before it would point to him not having been home. Failing that, it was mankey out so he would've probably trudged in some wet or dirty footprints.

wyrn · 07-12-2019 12:14am

Asitis2019 wrote: »

I've been rereading the Irish Times articles from 2015

One thing that has always puzzled me over the years about this case is that it has always been assumed that he never made it home on the morning of December 8. Has it ever been disclosed why this is the case? For example, was his apartment examined? What about his flatmates?

It is the one thing about the case that seems odd - that there has been no attention to his place of residence and his flatmates.

The clothes he was wearing wasn't there and neither was the massive umbrella. He could have popped in but it seems highly unlikely

NewbridgeIR · 07-12-2019 1:02am

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m a bit puzzled myself by this. Going into the office at 3am or so after a night out. Was it to use email facilities which were then not so readily available outside work-emailing girlfriends, boyfriends or overseas relatives?

Back then a lot of people used internet cafes for checking personal email. In this case, it's quite possible that personal email (Hotmail / Yahoo etc) was blocked / not permitted by the employer so it would not have been accessible on his work PC.

noodler · 07-12-2019 1:10am

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

Back then a lot of people used internet cafes for checking personal email. In this case, it's quite possible that personal email (Hotmail / Yahoo etc) was blocked / not permitted by the employer so it would not have been accessible on his work PC.

Yeah but again (and again) the IT articles have interviews with the guy he chatted with, set down and had tea with, gossiped with etc

tara73 · 07-12-2019 1:27am

after reading the OP again, this whole thread seems so stupid or so obvious in it's intention.

why announce it on the news/media a new witness has come forward? what does it tells us? nothing. just that, just that a new witness has come forward. great, but why do announce it on the media? Is AGS really that bold to try to attract interest and potential witnesses in this case again with a lie?

noodler · 07-12-2019 1:38am

https://youtu.be/hS6GUgJ4y0E

It's actually kind of scary looking at the video, I'm only a few minutes in but did read the comments. They are missing that the two people staring in the fence are colleagues and running with a Bank robbery theory seemingly missing the fact it wasn't a retail bank.

220k views too.

Omackeral · 07-12-2019 1:47am

That thumbnail is ridiculously annoying and tasteless

Fr Tod Umptious · 07-12-2019 1:55am

Asitis2019 wrote: »

I've been rereading the Irish Times articles from 2015

One thing that has always puzzled me over the years about this case is that it has always been assumed that he never made it home on the morning of December 8. Has it ever been disclosed why this is the case? For example, was his apartment examined? What about his flatmates?

It is the one thing about the case that seems odd - that there has been no attention to his place of residence and his flatmates.

People need to stop coming to this case with the mindset that they are the first people to come up with obvious questions.

Of course his flat was examined, of course his flatmates were talked to.

And from that it was concluded that he did not make it home.

The last known whereabouts of Trevor was him heading east on Haddington Rd as per the CCTV.

If the Gardai thought he had been home we would have been told.

The only odd things about this case are
1. Trevor has vanished without a trace
And
2. The man sheltering at the pillar of BOIAM has never come forward.

noodler · 07-12-2019 1:59am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

People need to stop coming to this case with the mindset that they are the first people to come up with obvious questions.

Of course his flat was examined, of course his flatmates were talked to.

And from that it was concluded that he did not make it home.

The last known whereabouts of Trevor was him heading east on Haddington Rd as per the CCTV.

If the Gardai thought he had been home we would have been told.

The only odd things about this case are
1. Trevor has vanished without a trace
And
2. The man sheltering at the pillar of BOIAM has never come forward.

Watching the videos again, it's amazing how the guy from CCTV 1 managed to get ahead of Trevor in CCTV2 (outside the gate) even though he started behind him and the distance was so short.

Not a new observation, just watching the video above where it's suggested there was two ppl but I don't see the second guy (if he existed) hiding at the gate pillar in CCTV2 without being seeing for a significant period of time

Fiftyfilthy · 07-12-2019 3:02am

Just watched a cold case top 5s in YouTube regarding the case (373k views)

The narrator has a completely ridiculous take on Alaska and his apartment

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jZEEP90T6kk

20Wheel · 07-12-2019 4:33am

Just had another gawk at the CCTV there, and although it's nothing new I just got to thinking about man in blacks movements.

I can not believe he wasn't waiting for Trevor, here's what occurred to me that didn't before.

Take the weirdness of him stepping out from the pillar at the exact moment of Trevors arrival, after 30 mins, and just imagine if you will that Trevor never actually arrived. Edit out Trevor.

What you would then be left with is the following: a man stands at a pillar at 3am in the rain, then suddenly decides to just walk 20ft and look through a gate. For the craic.
Then walk away.

Like hmm let me just wait here, then walk 20ft round a corner, gawk through a fence and walk away. As you do.

(but no, he had to take his fence gawking trip on the same night that a man within meters of him goes missing for years, never identifying himself to police in the meantime)

Back in reality, Man in black walks ahead (crucial) of Trevor who just so happens to be going the same direction as mib on his 3am fence gawking exercise.

This is beyond coincidence, astronomical odds.

He either knows Trevors route, or he's just into random fence gawking.

The lack of a good reason to go fence gawking at 3am, and the timing of the call mib takes, seconds before Trevors arrival, all line up to premeditation. Its too much.

(edit. To be more precise here are mibs movements in a tape which edits out Trevor. Arrive at corner 3am, take call, wait 30 mins, take call, step out from pillar, look one direction, do a 180, walk round a corner, look through a fence for the craic, shuffle about, walk away.

Day Lewin · 07-12-2019 8:54am

@20Wheel, Exactly this, well said.

and - following the train of thought - IF that is so (and I agree with you) then some theories must be ruled out, and others considered as possible. (Just speaking as an amateur Sherlock, you understand)

Logic, my dear Watson!

07-12-2019 9:31am

I said that in the previous deleted thread....phonecall etc is just beyond coincidence.

oneilla · 07-12-2019 10:15am

noodler wrote: »

Watching the videos again, it's amazing how the guy from CCTV 1 managed to get ahead of Trevor in CCTV2 (outside the gate) even though he started behind him and the distance was so short.

Not a new observation, just watching the video above where it's suggested there was two ppl but I don't see the second guy (if he existed) hiding at the gate pillar in CCTV2 without being seeing for a significant period of time

Trevor was on the phone as he approached BOIAM. He stopped on the footpath between the CCTV1 at the pillar and CCTV2 facing the gate to finish up the call - affair the call was to Peter the security man. Trevor stopping to finish the call is what allowed the man dressed in black to walk passed him and make it to the gate before him.

I've not seen it suggested before that the man at the pillar CCTV and the man at the gate CCTV are two different people. Gardaelieve it's the same man - they even seem to believe that it's the same man on the Haddington Rd atm CCTV.

snotboogie · 07-12-2019 10:18am

noodler wrote: »

Watching the videos again, it's amazing how the guy from CCTV 1 managed to get ahead of Trevor in CCTV2 (outside the gate) even though he started behind him and the distance was so short.

Not a new observation, just watching the video above where it's suggested there was two ppl but I don't see the second guy (if he existed) hiding at the gate pillar in CCTV2 without being seeing for a significant period of time

There is 20ft between the two cctv cameras, it took the mystery man 20 seconds to walk it and it took Trevor 45 seconds. Trevor was on the phone so may have stopped to finish his call.

juno10353 · 07-12-2019 11:19am

Okay, I have read the entire thread but am confused on one or two points. Where exactly was Trevor's work building. Ie Leeson st bridge or canal bank. The CCTV on baggot street bridge corner, is Trever heading south on Baggot street or east down haddington rd ie where is the camera facing. Sorry if this is already answered

noodler · 07-12-2019 11:21am

juno10353 wrote: »

Okay, I have read the entire thread but am confused on one or two points. Where exactly was Trevor's work building. Ie Leeson st bridge or canal bank. The CCTV on baggot street bridge corner, is Trever heading south on Baggot street or east down haddington rd ie where is the camera facing. Sorry if this is already answered

Wilton Terrace.

jr86 · 07-12-2019 11:24am

One thing that always struck me was the time it took TD to get from his office, to when he was last seen on CCTV footage. iirc it took him about 11 minutes, when it is very much a 6 minute walk - I've done it many times.

I know he called his mate during this time but it wasn't a night to be stopping and hanging around, any call would be made while walking surely. And it didn't take him 5 minutes as it went straight to voicemail

I'd be very surprised if TD didn't encounter and engage with someone during this walk. Whether someone sinister or not who knows

jr86 · 07-12-2019 11:28am

juno10353 wrote: »

Okay, I have read the entire thread but am confused on one or two points. Where exactly was Trevor's work building. Ie Leeson st bridge or canal bank. The CCTV on baggot street bridge corner, is Trever heading south on Baggot street or east down haddington rd ie where is the camera facing. Sorry if this is already answered

Camera is facing down Haddington road. That was an old BOI branch where that CCTV was taken from. It's now a Milanos. He worked in Wilton Terrace, near the Leeson Street side, very near Buck Whaley's. The distance between his office and the CCTV camera at Haddington road would be no more than a 6 minute walk, not even factoring in that there would be no traffic on road to cross, and given the pace he's walking at when captured on CCTV

tdf7187 · 07-12-2019 11:38am

jr86 wrote: »

One thing that always struck me was the time it took TD to get from his office, to when he was last seen on CCTV footage. iirc it took him about 11 minutes, when it is very much a 6 minute walk - I've done it many times.

I know he called his mate during this time but it wasn't a night to be stopping and hanging around, any call would be made while walking surely. And it didn't take him 5 minutes as it went straight to voicemail

I'd be very surprised if TD didn't encounter and engage with someone during this walk. Whether someone sinister or not who knows

we dont know that for sure. he was a smoker so he could have paused to light a cig and taken longer than usual due to weather.

castletownman · 07-12-2019 12:00pm

Just on the discrepancy of taking 11 mins to walk the usual 6 mins to where he was last seen, and the possibility he was on the phone. I don't know about anyone else, but if I have ever felt uneasy walking a street at night-time, or felt there was someone following me, I have often taken out my phone to "make" a phone call, as a safety blanket/aversion tactic.

He may well have stopped for a cigarette or dipped under shelter for a couple of minutes too, again under the belief he was being followed in the hope they would walk by. Not beyond the realms of possibility.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9 · 07-12-2019 12:31pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MznGtmseO2o

This says he was in Alaska on some dodgy business and on return was tailed by three people. That they followed him to his apartment and the other gang members were waiting there.

I don't believe that and had not heard it before. and the maker seems to think the garda shouldshare what they know with him or us as he says

noodler · 07-12-2019 12:31pm

Lina Limited Workaholic wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MznGtmseO2o

This says he was in Alaska on some dodgy business and on return was tailed by three people. That they followed him to his apartment and the other gang members were waiting there.

I don't believe that and had not heard it before. and the maker seems to think the garda shouldshare what they know with him or us as he says

Of course you don't believe it.

You'd want to be mental to believe it.

cj maxx · 07-12-2019 12:33pm

castletownman wrote: »

Just on the discrepancy of taking 11 mins to walk the usual 6 mins to where he was last seen, and the possibility he was on the phone. I don't know about anyone else, but if I have ever felt uneasy walking a street at night-time, or felt there was someone following me, I have often taken out my phone to "make" a phone call, as a safety blanket/aversion tactic.

He may well have stopped for a cigarette or dipped under shelter for a couple of minutes too, again under the belief he was being followed in the hope they would walk by. Not beyond the realms of possibility.

I was going to post similar. Very very reasonable scenario

80j2lc5y7u6qs9 · 07-12-2019 12:36pm

noodler wrote: »

Of course you don't believe it.

You'd want to be mental to believe it.

It also says a theory is the man in black was a MAN IN BLACK ala conspiracy about something supernatural he saw in alaska:D

How come the man in black reached the gate before T when T had passed him and was in front. Was he hassling T beteween the gates.T walks to the centre and turns in while the mib goes down along beside the wall. He does look quite rejected after speaking with t head down

KWAG2019 · 07-12-2019 1:59pm

20Wheel wrote: »

I can not believe he wasn't waiting for Trevor, here's what occurred to me that didn't before.

Take the weirdness of him stepping out from the pillar at the exact moment of Trevors arrival, after 30 mins, and just imagine if you will that Trevor never actually arrived. Edit out Trevor.

I see no reason to believe he was waiting for TD.
You have to start with the fact that this is a police edited CCTV. It shows what they think is significant i.e. the interaction between TD and the man. They want that man to come forward to help with enquiries.
There are 28 minutes missing from the man's arrival to the arrival of TD. We don't know how many times or if at all he stepped out to the path and looked up and down. We don't know how many calls he made if any or how many calls he received if any. We don't know if he stepped out at the exact moment of other people's arrival or if others arrive before TD. And bear in mind that we don't know if that man was visible on CCTV or to patrol Gardai or residents or others who know that area at nighttime in weeks before TD's arrival or after it.

When we don't know so much we can't build definitive accounts of events. Likelihoods yes: I can think of other likelihoods but they add nothing to the thread and are as unprovable as any other.

20Wheel wrote: »

What you would then be left with is the following: a man stands at a pillar at 3am in the rain, then suddenly decides to just walk 20ft and look through a gate. For the craic.
Then walk away.

Like hmm let me just wait here, then walk 20ft round a corner, gawk through a fence and walk away. As you do.

(but no, he had to take his fence gawking trip on the same night that a man within meters of him goes missing for years, never identifying himself to police in the meantime)

There is no doubt that the interaction between TD and the man is of huge significance to the police. It keeps that significance if the meeting was random. It doesn't need a backstory to be created for it to be significant. It is significant because it happened.

20Wheel wrote: »

Back in reality, Man in black walks ahead (crucial) of Trevor who just so happens to be going the same direction as mib on his 3am fence gawking exercise.

This is beyond coincidence, astronomical odds.

He either knows Trevors route, or he's just into random fence gawking.

The lack of a good reason to go fence gawking at 3am, and the timing of the call mib takes, seconds before Trevors arrival, all line up to premeditation. Its too much.

No. The interaction can be seen as just as significant without there being some premeditated plan involving others to target TD.

Look at what we know. TD walks past on phone. Man has no reaction. Man looks around. Sees TD stopped? (I'm going by time delay to get to gate). Man approaches TD hears chat about security opening gate (?) and goes down into the next available gateway. (That is a busy junction)

Interaction takes place. It was previously noted that there are passersby on other side of road and at least one car passes on road. Man seems to keep head down. Interaction ends.

It was previously said that the man seemed to have little awareness of or was indifferent to presence of CCTV in both locations.

I believe the police would have speculated about what persons are likely to be hanging around that area at that time. Their speculation would be based on knowledge of the area, access to more CCTV footage than we have and other intelligence. They have drawn attention to these few minutes again and they are hoping that by raising awareness of TD that someone will come forward.

TL:DR The interaction with the man at the pillar is what matters. It does not need to be premeditated to be significant.

EmmetSpiceland · 07-12-2019 2:17pm

KWAG2019 wrote: »

I see no reason to believe he was waiting for TD.
You have to start with the fact that this is a police edited CCTV. It shows what they think is significant i.e. the interaction between TD and the man. They want that man to come forward to help with enquiries.

TL:DR The interaction with the man at the pillar is what matters. It does not need to be premeditated to be significant.

The first mention of the MIB was at the time of the disappearance. He was mentioned when it was stated that TD had a “brief chat” with a man at the gate.

The next time he’s mentioned was only a couple of years ago when the footage of him waiting around for over half an hour and only moving around to the gate when TD passes.

Why was this not mentioned before? The only “stills” of the MIB released, at the time of the disappearance, was of his side profile and it was very dark. Why on earth was the shot of him looking directly through the gate facing the camera not put out?

From what I gather that image was first published by a “regional” newspaper, again a couple of years ago, and they got it from that McIntyre documentary but it was never mentioned that this was the MIB in that doc.

Trevor Deely case - new witness

Comments