Since there's not much happening at the moment, thought I'd write out some notes on a recent point of contention.
Planned abduction vs Opportunist crime.
There appears to be two main theories as to what happened to MM at the hands of CB.
A. MM was taken as part of a well planned abduction.
B. CB broke in with little advance planning and took MM (possibly killing her beforehand in 5A).
Since CB was announced as a suspect, I've kept an open mind but for the most part I've leaned towards theory A. Recently, I'm being more swayed to theory B. I think the reason most people believe this was a planned operation centres from how little evidence was left. MM vanished without a trace. For some, the idea that CB opportunistically broke in (perhaps to rob) and took MM without leaving a trace seems too implausible and would have required a huge amount of luck.
There are however, a number of things don't quite add up in the planned abduction theory either. Things, that do make more sense in the scenario of say CB possibly breaking in to burgle, and turning his attention to MM instead. Here's some of the reasons why I'm now leaning toward this being an opportunist effort and, also why I think MM might have died in 5A.
1. CB is no mastermind. If we look at his track record, his known crimes are mostly opportunistic. The DM rape did require some advance planning, but nothing to the level of what abducting MM would have. DM lived in an isolated villa on her own. He broke in dressed in head to toe gear to avoid leaving DNA, attacked her in privacy, then left her there.
2. How could an effective plan really be put together? With MM, he had to work out the movements of various members of the Tapas group who seemed to have quite random checking times. This in a holiday resort with other holiday makers also walking around. He had to get in, carry MM and exit without wakingher. Either out of the window (awkward) or through a door, which he then closed behind him while still carrying her. Then get her to a safe place without being seen. Now I'm not saying those things couldn't have happened but however good the plan, he would have always being relying on some level of luck throughout to not be noticed. Plus, how would he have managed to gather all this intel of the tapas group's routines? Hanging around on the corner each night watching everything would have looked a bit suspect. He might have had insider knowledge but again, how in depth could this be, an OC employee couldn't spend all their time watching the group either. And even if there was an inside source, that doesn't mean that it was with the intention of abduction, someone might have just given him the heads up of when to rob it.
3. Why not pick an easier target? The BKA believe CB killed MM "relatively quickly" which seemingly rules out any abduction to order of MM. They also think CB acted alone. So it begs the question why would he target MM specifically? If it was for his own perversions, there are far easier ways and places to abduct a child.
4. HCW doesn't appear to have ever referred to an abduction/kidnap, only a murder. This is odd, they announced from the start they were investigating CB on suspicion of murder. Why not abduction AND murder? One possibility is that MM was killed in the apartment by CB and then her body removed so technically, there was no abduction. This lends more to the theory he broke in to rob, saw MM and opportunistically tried to abuse her. She woke up, he tried to silence her and killed her. He then took her body to hide the evidence (possibly his DNA) and/or abuse her further.
5. CB re-registered his car the next day. We don't know why he did this but one theory is that it was to provide an alibi that he was in Germany. But if that's the case and it was a planned abduction, why didn't he do it before? It looks more like a reactive move, as though some unforeseen event has triggered it.
6. Police have made no mention of a murder scene. They have said they are looking for places MM's body might have been disposed of, but not where she was killed. It could be because they already know she was killed in the apartment. All the things HCW has said about her death are consistent with that theory, especially about her being killed quickly and not being with CB (or anyone else) for very long.
7. German LE floated the suggestion that the taking of MM might have been 'spontaneous'. Christian Hoppe alluded to this when CB was first announced as a suspect. Conversely, I've not really seen any comments from German LE that strongly suggest a planned operation over an opportunist one.
8. LE have confidence of death but not of abuse. Based on HCW's comments, many people think the material evidence convincing them of death is a photo or video. If it is, why are they not confident that she was abused? They only list this as a suspicion. If MM was taken alive as part of a planned abduction, surely CB would have filmed the abuse given his previous. It's therefore possible CB did not have this opportunity, and perhaps MM was killed during a bungled abuse attempt within 5A itself. The photo may have been post-mortem, possibly showing signs of how she died (strangulation marks etc), something else HCW claims they know.
9. Something only the abductor would know. This comment from HCW suggests CB must have told someone (possibly HB) something true about the crime that wasn't in the public domain. One possibility is that CB was in the apartment when GM or MO did their check and he mentioned something they did. I can't think of any more plausible publicly unknown info that CB might have mentioned that police would be able to verify. While it's possible this event could have happened in a planned abduction, it would seem less likely. If well planned, you'd think he'd strike when he had a bigger window. The scenario sounds more logical in an opportunist effort, where he had no idea of when someone was going to enter and where he might have remained in the apartment for a longer time than he would in a planned in-and-out snatch attempt.
10. CB's previous encounters with random children. We know he masurbated in front of a group of children in a playground. We have another story of him masturbating in front of a group of sleeping schoolgirls. He has a criminal record for twice indecently exposing himself to children in Germany. All these appear to be opportunistic acts. Rather than a well planed operation, IMO it seems more likely that what happened to MM was perhaps along the same lines, perhaps before something went wrong and he panicked. He might have gone in there with the intention of doing it or, turned his mind to it when he went to burgle. Either way, it is more in keeping with his MO that he did something like that rather than go in with the intention of kidnapping her.
All JMO, I expect many will disagree and I'm not looking to change people's minds. Just wanted to collate some ideas I've had recently.
Some interesting points there some of which I disagree with - tho JMO. I don't think it was a major criminal act for others. There is a middle ground where an opportunity was espied to grab a child and then planned. But re your points:
Point 1) and point 3) You wouldn't need to be a criminal mastermind to choose the McCanns appt. It was perfectly located for thefts and abductions.
Ground floor, bedroom window and front door facing a quietish car park, unlocked patio doors. Easy access, easy exit, absent adults for sufficiently long periods of time. She was an incredibly easy target - can't think of an easier
That's why I think she was taken rather than one of the other children.
And that ties in with point 10) he abused children - why would you go for a few cameras when you'd identified you could just as easily grab a child. Thefts are easy, people leave valuables at home and go out all the timr. Opportunities to abduct a child far rarer usually.
Point 2) The Tapas 7 weren't really that random, they left gaps. Nor do I think they were as frequent and rigorous as they could have been. Their indicator of safe was were the kids asleep i.e. quiet. So many checks were just a walk by the window and listen
So on the night in question she was only seen once, by GM, in all the checks. Also MM cried for quite some time on 1st May - no check picked it up. The kids were alone for long enough periods to act.
There were dark places to lurk and watch as witnesses have stated they'd seen odd characters lurking there before.
So I think he became aware of an opportunity early on - easy location and absent adults - and then watched and planned around it.
Also point 2) He did actually manage to get in, remove her and exit incredibly easily and successfully so clearly not difficult for someone like him. IMO only the only real points of concern would be entry and exit and he was an experienced burglar.
Once in he could leave by the front door and be an ordinary looking bloke carrying a sleeping child in tourist area. A place where people carry their kids from creches or sleepovers or restaurants.
There were two individual sightings of such an event (Tannerman and Smithman) which nobody reacted to.
Point 4) if she was killed in the appt -given his predilections, wouldn't it be as likely to be a failed abduction as a failed theft?
Point 5 is as relevant for a theft as an abduction. I don't think he's that bright anyway
Point 6 police have mentioned very little. IMO if she'd died in the appt there would have been some signs. Rumpled bedding, perhaps blood. There doesn't appear to have been.
Point 7) seeing an opportunity does not preclude then planning to seize that opportunity. Poor little kid presented an ideal opportunity (listed before - ideal location, parents out). That doesn't mean he didn't then plan and watch before exploiting it
Points 8 and 9 material evidence of death and something only the abductor would know could be the same!.
If LE have this material evidence showing how she died - and they've said they know how - that is something only the perpetrator would know. Perhaps that is the information that only the perpetrator would know and that is the smoking gun passed to police?
