Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #20

[mrjitty]

Planned abduction vs Opportunist crime.

RSBM - top post.

Just replying on these 2 points.

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.

Agreed. This guy is small time, who routinely takes big risks and gets caught. I find it highly unlikely he was part of any people smuggling gang.

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.

This has always been my beef with the tabloid style stories of suspicious people lurking around OC keeping apartments under observation.

As you say, he had no way to know when checks would occur, and indeed due to rotation, another check might happen within mins of the last one.

It seems far more likely you would observe the parents leave, and then strike. He had realistically no way to know who was at dinner, or to know which people might check which apartment.

 

[Dlk79]

Just recalling a quote from MT, where he spoke about when he supposedly first realised CB may have been responsible for MM's disappearance. He claims to have been watching the Netflix documentary and says this -

“I knew immediately that he was guilty. The part where the female tourist talked about the man turning up at her door while her child played by the front door, the creepy guy with acne and blonde hair… I just knew it was Christian.”
EXCLUSIVE: Former friend of Maddie suspect Christian B spent months with him in Spain's Andalucia and believes he's guilty - Olive Press News Spain

Does anyone know what part he is referring to here? I assumed he was talking about the bogus charity collecters. There's a section on it near the end of episode 6 and in the one bit, they do a reconstruction of an incident where one of these collecters was speaking to a mother on her doorstep while her daughter played in the background.

The collecter was staring at the girl and later that day, the mother came downstairs to find the man in her living room with her daughter, he then ran away. However, if that is what MT is referring to, I've no idea how he would have attributed that to being CB. They don't say the man was blonde or that he had acne, they don't describe him at all. The actor doing the reconstruction has long brown hair and looks nothing like CB either.

Is he perhaps mixing this part up with the sightings around the Ocean club about the blonde pockmarked man? That is covered in another episode. Or is he just lying, and he knew more about CB's involvement than he's letting on?

 

[Chiatos]

May I remind everyone that by HCW's own words in the podcast, the solid evidence against CB is based on more than any hear say or witness account.

 

[Newthoughts]

RSBM

This is an example of propensity reasoning which would not be allowed at trial. Just because he is the kind of abuser who has targeted kids (in a fairly typical way) does not tend to prove in one way or another that he is likely to have planned an abduction.

Profiling works in these cases because we know historically that sex offenders will tend to act up to their big crime, so you will find clues in their past consisting of lesser offences. So then by looking for more evidence, you can link them to the crime.

But the prior offending of itself doesn't tell us anything about whether he is the kind of offender who would do an abduction.

That is what worries me most about the media discussion - it tends to assume guilt because CB did other bad crimes

This is not a trial tho, I am offering a response to somebody else's reasoning of why he would have gone into the McCanns appt, if it was him, and why he took MM.

I don't think whoever it was went in there on a stealing spree. I think if a child disturbed a burglar they'd either run before or after trying to shut it up. I don't think they'd burden themselves with a body afterwards either.

Historically, as you say, offenders work up to their big crime so if it was abduction and murder he has the right profile.

I have to say I would have the same opinion about the motives whoever the suspect was. Opportunistic thieves take goods not children. But most of the time when a child is taken its because they want that child.

 

[Newthoughts]

RSBM - top post.

Just replying on these 2 points.



Agreed. This guy is small time, who routinely takes big risks and gets caught. I find it highly unlikely he was part of any people smuggling gang.



This has always been my beef with the tabloid style stories of suspicious people lurking around OC keeping apartments under observation.

As you say, he had no way to know when checks would occur, and indeed due to rotation, another check might happen within mins of the last one.

It seems far more likely you would observe the parents leave, and then strike. He had realistically no way to know who was at dinner, or to know which people might check which apartment.

Nonetheless he, or somebody, successfully broke in, took a small child and got away with it. Despite all the checks, despite the people wondering around outside. It only takes a bit of watching to see what was happening.

Nobody is suggesting Brinks Matt style planning just a conveniently located appt, a child and parents you know are going to be eating with their mates out of sight. It's just a matter of knowing they did that

 

[Newthoughts]

It's interesting you say "based on that", your opinion is that he went in there with the sole intention of taking MM. Yet both the examples you quote didn't involve any sort of abduction. They were both abuse in situ, which is what I'm effectively proposing might have happened.

The only common theme is that they involved some planning. And just to be clear, I'm not saying CB did not plan anything. Even a burglary usually requires SOME element of planning. My main distinction between the 2 theories is whether CB's intent was always to abduct MM that night (which would have required a specific plan to do so) or was it something else and that his plans changed.

So even assuming he did plan 'something' ahead of time, why is it necessarily that his plan was to take MM? Is it not equally as likely that his plan was just to carry out some sort of abuse while MM was asleep in the apartment? That would have been more in keeping with his MO from what we know about him.

Even discounting the theory of a death occurring in 5A. He might have gone in with the intention of doing something while she was asleep and then (for whatever reasons) ended up taking her.

An interesting potential link for me was mentioned in the Netflix documentary. It's in the 8th episode, about 24 minutes in. Andy Redwood of SY talks of a possible connection to a sexual predator operating in the area. This man had alledgedly sexually assaulted 5 young white british girls IN THEIR OWN BEDS. British police uncovered 28 similar cases in the area, in nearly all of them the victims were british tourists. When they discuss the man's description, they seem to match with CB's profile. They say he was speaking English but with a foreign accent (check), his skin was very tanned (check), he wore a face mask (similar concept to the DM case) and he smelt strange (like a mechanic maybe?). The one aspect that doesn't quite match is the hair, it is described as dark. I don't know how CB's hair would look in a darkened bedroom (it looks quite brown in certain photos) but there's also the obvious option he was wearing one of his wigs. Would make sense as a disguise combined with the face mask and also a way keep his real hair covered up to prevent shedding DNA evidence (again, similar to DM case).

IF this predator was indeed CB, it could be his intent with MM that night involved something similar prior to something going wrong (accidental death etc?) or him deciding he had an opportunity to take her with him.

But the fact remains he took MM. So this time he did take a victim. Every new crime has a first time.

The other victims were slightly older. Slightly harder to abduct.

 

[Victoria Chambers]

You've not invented it - it was an 'exclusive' in the Daily Express (though no names are mentioned):
Apartment key theft cover-up by resort staff in Madeleine McCann case

Thank You. Was doubting my own sanity with this 1. X

 

[Victoria Chambers]

Thanks. I would like to add in support of my counter arguments the things we now know about CB because he has been fairly convicted of them. They include a cruel and brutal planned rape, child abuse and possession of images of child abuse. The rape clearly involved some planning.

Likewise the abuse of a girlfriends small daughter involved getting to know her which is planning. I'll add it's a common ploy for paedophiles - befriending parents long before abusing. It's a plan

Based on that my opinion is he went in with the sole intention of taking MM.


Firstly we don't actually know how he entered or left. All we know is that the window was opened.

We do know that the patio doors faced the pool and restaurants and would be more public of you looked a bit shifty than either the bedroom window or front door. If other holidaymakers were in they would be more likely to be sitting in the lounge looking out thru the patio doors than looking out of bedroom windows

We do know he was a pretty successful burglar so would the window have been that much harder?

So based on that the options could range from in thru patio, check coast is clear thru window, out thru front door. In thru window out thru front door and so on.

Lastly planned doesn't necessarily have to mean 'carefully' planned. Nobody had said carefully planned.

Similarly Seeing an opportunity doesn't mean you don't plan the best way to seize it. And it worked

I have to say, lots of criminals have a plan. But paedophiles are on another level when it comes to grooming. They will spend month's building false relationships with people just to fit with their own selfish plan. Which is to abuse. The most scheming of all the predators imo. X

 

[enjy15]

Interesting

I think @SuperdadV8 might be correct that the evidence is more in the direction of internet chats and witnesses than photos/videos

My highly overvalued opinion is that they believe such evidence exists or existed, but they don't have it.

Agreed! Especially with CB apparently knowing something only the perp would know? He might have discussed it in a chat or he may have discussed a video/photo he has of MM that a witness may have seen which correlates but the video/photo cannot be located.

 

[Dlk79]

I don't think whoever it was went in there on a stealing spree. I think if a child disturbed a burglar they'd either run before or after trying to shut it up. I don't think they'd burden themselves with a body afterwards either.

I think that's a bit of a misleading representation of the argument that is being made. I don't think anyone is suggesting he got interrupted while simply burgling, I certainly haven't. The suggestion was that whatever happened may have been opportunist, as opposed him going into the apartment with the predetermined intention of kidnap. The possibility raised about being disturbed and trying to silence MM applied to the logic that CB possibly tried to abuse her in the apartment.

But the fact remains he took MM. So this time he did take a victim. Every new crime has a first time.

Indeed there is, and I'm not discounting it. I was just interested why you cited those 2 acts as your reasoning for a planned abduction when neither involved an abduction. As I said, abusing MM within the apartment would have been more in keeping with the MO of those crimes along with other acts he has been associated with.

 

[Victoria Chambers]

I was reading about a block of flats or apartments that stand behind the tapas bar, kind of overlooking the OC depending on which floor you lived on. And apparently phones within that building also pinged off of the OC mast. It makes it clear to me that a person could be in the vicinity of But not actually in the OC resort, in any of OC blocks. Let alone block 5. X

 

[Chiatos]

Interesting

I think @SuperdadV8 might be correct that the evidence is more in the direction of internet chats and witnesses than photos/videos

My highly overvalued opinion is that they believe such evidence exists or existed, but they don't have it.

In the Australian podcast HCW made clear that they do have that evidence. And probably also generated by CB's own phone.

 

[Victoria Chambers]

It's interesting you say "based on that", your opinion is that he went in there with the sole intention of taking MM. Yet both the examples you quote didn't involve any sort of abduction. They were both abuse in situ, which is what I'm effectively proposing might have happened.

The only common theme is that they involved some planning. And just to be clear, I'm not saying CB did not plan anything. Even a burglary usually requires SOME element of planning. My main distinction between the 2 theories is whether CB's intent was always to abduct MM that night (which would have required a specific plan to do so) or was it something else and that his plans changed.

So even assuming he did plan 'something' ahead of time, why is it necessarily that his plan was to take MM? Is it not equally as likely that his plan was just to carry out some sort of abuse while MM was asleep in the apartment? That would have been more in keeping with his MO from what we know about him.

Even discounting the theory of a death occurring in 5A. He might have gone in with the intention of doing something while she was asleep and then (for whatever reasons) ended up taking her.

An interesting potential link for me was mentioned in the Netflix documentary. It's in the 8th episode, about 24 minutes in. Andy Redwood of SY talks of a possible connection to a sexual predator operating in the area. This man had alledgedly sexually assaulted 5 young white british girls IN THEIR OWN BEDS. British police uncovered 28 similar cases in the area, in nearly all of them the victims were british tourists. When they discuss the man's description, they seem to match with CB's profile. They say he was speaking English but with a foreign accent (check), his skin was very tanned (check), he wore a face mask (similar concept to the DM case) and he smelt strange (like a mechanic maybe?). The one aspect that doesn't quite match is the hair, it is described as dark. I don't know how CB's hair would look in a darkened bedroom (it looks quite brown in certain photos) but there's also the obvious option he was wearing one of his wigs. Would make sense as a disguise combined with the face mask and also a way keep his real hair covered up to prevent shedding DNA evidence (again, similar to DM case).

IF this predator was indeed CB, it could be his intent with MM that night involved something similar prior to something going wrong (accidental death etc?) or him deciding he had an opportunity to take her with him.

I've always thought that MM abductor fits perfectly with the predator who assaulted those British girls. And even more so in taking her since his last attempt, he was caught and fled the apartment. But we also realised that CB was in prison for at least the time of 2, possibly 3 of those assaults in 2006. X

 

[Victoria Chambers]

Given the supposed evidence.. If turns out that no charges can be brought. Will the evidence information never be released to FF?
If it is genuine evidence of death, I cannot see SY leaving it at that after all these years! Is there no way for them to then go after CB? X

 

[Dlk79]

'Madeleine is Dead' - They've Taken Her - Omny.fm

A podcast with HCW about MM

Couple of interesting quotes from HCW in that podcast. The first one that stuck out was -

"We have some evidence that he killed MM but I'm not able to say on which day exactly."

Not sure what to make of that. A very confusing answer since he was actually being asked a question about how accurately they can say CB was in PDL that night. And given other quotes he has made about her being killed relatively quickly, it does seem a bit of an odd thing to mention in the context of the question. Does he perhaps mean he is "not able to say" in the sense that he is not allowed to say, rather than he doesn't know?

Another one that I found interesting was when the interviewer mentions the blood/cadaver dogs and then asks HCW about the possibility of MM having died in the apartment. It's the first time I've heard anyone pose that question. He gives a typically evasive answer that he cannot comment on investigations from the past (in reference to the dogs) and he cannot comment on the concrete investigations of the future. Not a lot to read from that perhaps except that he did not rule out MM having died in 5A.

ETA: on the first point, having listened to it again I think I understand what HCW is trying to say now in the context of the question. He is saying they have evidence that CB was directly involved in killing MM but that this evidence does not give any specific indication of when that murder took place. He then talks about the phone call as being an indicator of placing him in PDL that night. In other words, the evidence that he killed her would lead them to assume he was in PDL that night to have taken her in the first place, and that the call is further confirmation of that assumption.

 

[Dlk79]

I've always thought that MM abductor fits perfectly with the predator who assaulted those British girls. And even more so in taking her since his last attempt, he was caught and fled the apartment. But we also realised that CB was in prison for at least the time of 2, possibly 3 of those assaults in 2006. X

Not sure the one where the man fled the apartment after being caught was linked as being the same predator who was climbing into girls beds. He was spoken about in a different episode of the documentary when they were talking about the bogus charity collectors.

Have you got any links about the assaults you say happened while CB was in prison? I vaguely recall some discussions on the thread about it but not much else.

 

[mrjitty]

But the fact remains he took MM. So this time he did take a victim. Every new crime has a first time.

Is this actually a fact?

Because to date, I have seen no evidence to support it.

 

[mrjitty]

This is not a trial tho, I am offering a response to somebody else's reasoning of why he would have gone into the McCanns appt, if it was him, and why he took MM.

I don't think whoever it was went in there on a stealing spree. I think if a child disturbed a burglar they'd either run before or after trying to shut it up. I don't think they'd burden themselves with a body afterwards either.

Historically, as you say, offenders work up to their big crime so if it was abduction and murder he has the right profile.

I have to say I would have the same opinion about the motives whoever the suspect was. Opportunistic thieves take goods not children. But most of the time when a child is taken its because they want that child.

The reason we don't allow that kind of evidence at trial is because it is a logical fallacy

So in terms of CB's guilt, we need to wait for something that connects him to the crime.

His known offences, in no way establish that

 

[katydid23]

I think that's a bit of a misleading representation of the argument that is being made. I don't think anyone is suggesting he got interrupted while simply burgling, I certainly haven't. The suggestion was that whatever happened may have been opportunist, as opposed him going into the apartment with the predetermined intention of kidnap. The possibility raised about being disturbed and trying to silence MM applied to the logic that CB possibly tried to abuse her in the apartment.

Indeed there is, and I'm not discounting it. I was just interested why you cited those 2 acts as your reasoning for a planned abduction when neither involved an abduction. As I said, abusing MM within the apartment would have been more in keeping with the MO of those crimes along with other acts he has been associated with.

Sex Offenders often change their MOs, as their predatory behaviour often escalates.

Also, there is a report that he spoke about his intention to take a child at some point so he could have 'more time' with them. If so, then this abduction fits into his heightened MO.

 

[Tekno]

I was reading about a block of flats or apartments that stand behind the tapas bar, kind of overlooking the OC depending on which floor you lived on. And apparently phones within that building also pinged off of the OC mast. It makes it clear to me that a person could be in the vicinity of But not actually in the OC resort, in any of OC blocks. Let alone block 5. X

I think you are referring to the Luztor block of flats where one of the ‘arguidos’ lived.