Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #20

[redplanet]

The fact that the cadaver dog alerted to MBM's teddy, Cuddle Cat, suggests to me the possibility that the child died in the bed alongside it. I can't think of a likelier scenario for how the toy was contaminated.

"The dog handler said Eddie didn't alert in any other situation except when he scented that which he was seeking: the scent of a human cadaver...Eddie also alerted to Cuddle Cat."

Most jaw-dropping moments from Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Netflix series

A police source told the Sunday Mirror: "When Kate tucked Madeleine up in bed earlier in the evening she had the toy tightly in her arms as she did every night.

"So Kate was terrified when she spotted it had been left in a place too high for her to reach."

What was Madeleine McCann's Cuddle Cat and how long did Kate carry it for?

The police video clearly shows the dog not alerting to the toy.

 

[redplanet]

The problem with that scenario is that the cadaver dog did not alert to MM's bed. If the alerts are accurate, I think it is more likely the scent on cuddle cat was from cross contamination.

The dogs also alerted to several other things after the event, mostly Kate's clothes. Given Kate was holding the teddy constantly in the days afterwards, it is plausible that the scent transferred to it from her clothes, which in turn might have been contaminated from something she cames into contact with. Once one piece of clothing has been contaminated with the scent, once put in a wardrobe etc, the rest follows. It could be that CB moved MM to somewhere in the apartment before the body started to give off a cadaver odour and that location is where Kate (or her clothes) came into contact with it.

ETA in line with @redplanet post, it should be noted that there is some debate over the accuracy of the alert to cuddle cat. Initially the dog dismisses it, even picking it up with his teeth and tossing it. Later, the handler places it in a cupboard and this time the dog does alert. However, the dog had also alerted to the cupboard itself previously. So yes, not entirely conclusive.

IMO the concept of cross-transfer between items on the shelf with eachother and with the shelf itself, is correct. BTW I'm looking at the first shelf up (pile of clothes).

 

[mrjitty]

I see no value in raking over the 5A coals, because no resolution is ever possible.

HCW needs something to break that paradigm. Presumably something that happens later in the timeline, in the hours and days following 10pm

FF by contrast, wants to get down in the weeds. Competing theories. Competing suspects. Years of MM sightings.

If the trial ever comes down to all that 5A / search / crimewatch / panorama / netflix stuff, HCW will suffer death by 1000 cuts, because there are just too many evidential points and theories to deal with

 

[C.greek]

I see no value in raking over the 5A coals, because no resolution is ever possible.

HCW needs something to break that paradigm. Presumably something that happens later in the timeline, in the hours and days following 10pm

FF by contrast, wants to get down in the weeds. Competing theories. Competing suspects. Years of MM sightings.

If the trial ever comes down to all that 5A / search / crimewatch / panorama / netflix stuff, HCW will suffer death by 1000 cuts, because there are just too many evidential points and theories to deal with

What do you mean by evidential points? HCW has already stated they do have concrete evidence and they know how she died. So this should cut through all theories.

 

[Quietey]

I see no value in raking over the 5A coals, because no resolution is ever possible.

HCW needs something to break that paradigm. Presumably something that happens later in the timeline, in the hours and days following 10pm

FF by contrast, wants to get down in the weeds. Competing theories. Competing suspects. Years of MM sightings.

If the trial ever comes down to all that 5A / search / crimewatch / panorama / netflix stuff, HCW will suffer death by 1000 cuts, because there are just too many evidential points and theories to deal with

What if something has been missed in the coals though? Or if advances in analytic techniques make it possible to re-examine evidence? I'm sure there is a clue in or around the apartment somewhere, but maybe it will only be found in hindsight, or if a witness comes forward.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

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.

I think the Tannerman/Smithman sightings support your opportunist theory too. The likely planned abduction theory would suggest that a car would provide cover and a quick exit from the crime scene but there are practically no witness statements suggesting a car was involved. As we know, there are two statements which claim there was a child fitting MM’s description being carried by a man/men in the area at the right time. IMO the lack of any witnesses suggesting a car was involved makes at least one of these sightings more likely to be the true exit method, I can’t see why anyone would make a plan to leave the abduction location on foot.

If your theory is correct it seems more likely that the abuse/abduction occurred during MO’s check rather than GM’s. GM states that he actually looked in the room and all three kids were sound asleep. This means that for CB to be in 5A during GM’s check, he would have likely but not definitely, been in the kids room abusing MM, then when GM entered the apartment, he hid behind the door. While looking into the room GM had to have no awareness that CB was there. For your theory to be true, MM would have needed to wake up after GM looked into the room. At this point, CB would have had to get to her silently before she could cry out and then restrain/suffocate her without making any noise. Not impossible but IMO made more difficult by the fact that all the parents were primarily checking for noise.

MO stated that he only saw the corner of her bed. It is therefore more possible that CB picked MM up and restrained and possibly suffocated MM behind the door during this check. This means that there were no concerning sounds i.e. crying, calls for help or rapid adult physical movement coming from the apartment before MO entered and while inside (I may have dreamt it but I think I recall MO mentioning a disturbance during his check but I can’t find it in the PJ Files).

If all this is correct the Tannerman sighting can be ruled out as it happened before MO’s check but Smithman could have been CB with MM. All seems to be congruent with the opportunistic burglary/abduction.

The part of the theory that concerns me most is CB exiting with MM’s corpse. CB is a career criminal with perverted and psychopathic behaviour. If he unintentionally killed MM, I see only two reasons why he might remove her corpse. The first option is that he panicked and without much thought left 5A carrying MM. This doesn’t seem to fit his profile, he frequently put himself in high-stress situations. The other option is that he made an assessment that it was less risky to leave and carry her corpse to a car or other safe location wherever that may be, rather than leave her corpse in 5A with the potential he might be linked to the crime forensically. I find it hard (not impossible) to believe that in that situation, he thought leaving with MM’s corpse at 9:30-10:00pm was the less risky option.

 

[Chiatos]

By GA's own words, CB was cleared in 2008. Question is: on what basis?
*Mark Saunokonoko*; perhaps you can ask GA the next time you interview him?

This is what we know about CB and about PJ:
1. To start with, PJ did not know CB possessed the Portuguese phone number that German LE has published recently (according to sexta9).

2. CB is known to have lied various times to PJ giving false/other phone numbers, addresses, places of work etc.

3. If you go through the PJfiles you'll see that the phone lists that PJ requested from the 3 providers at the time, look as if they have been scrutinised for foreign mobiles only. Not for Portuguese mobiles. Apart from those of the persons of interest such RM, SM, and others.

4. Furthermore, the DM reported the following: Basic groundwork, including research into mobile phone data in Praia da Luz on the day that Madeleine disappeared, was not done until an elite team of Met officers on Operation Grange were asked to investigate. Although the Policia Judiciaria had this information at the time she vanished, they did not find out who the phones were registered to – even though cell-site analysis is a crucial investigative tool and the catalyst for solving countless crimes.
Bungled from the start: the Madeleine McCann inquiry | Daily Mail Online

 

[MENDEL]

CB was perhaps discarded for the same reason that OG didn't show any interest in him. My guess.

FF seems to have lots of info on CB's number or numbers so perhaps PJ at least knew the number (or numbers).

The PDL call log for May 2-4, 2007 was requested to operators in May 2007 and covered all calls made within the area, both local and roaming. DM is funny. Any LE uses geographical mobile data on any major crime.

 

[Officer Dibble]

I've wondered the same. While people were out searching for MM, or in the panic immediately upon discovery of a missing child, could someone have gone in and removed a hidden body, or even been inside at the time. As mentioned on these pages recently - things that sound far-fetched may be possible.

But her mum searched the property.

 

[Officer Dibble]

Sky News clip.

Oh!

 

[Officer Dibble]

I think the Tannerman/Smithman sightings support your opportunist theory too. The likely planned abduction theory would suggest that a car would provide cover and a quick exit from the crime scene but there are practically no witness statements suggesting a car was involved. As we know, there are two statements which claim there was a child fitting MM’s description being carried by a man/men in the area at the right time. IMO the lack of any witnesses suggesting a car was involved makes at least one of these sightings more likely to be the true exit method, I can’t see why anyone would make a plan to leave the abduction location on foot.

If your theory is correct it seems more likely that the abuse/abduction occurred during MO’s check rather than GM’s. GM states that he actually looked in the room and all three kids were sound asleep. This means that for CB to be in 5A during GM’s check, he would have likely but not definitely, been in the kids room abusing MM, then when GM entered the apartment, he hid behind the door. While looking into the room GM had to have no awareness that CB was there. For your theory to be true, MM would have needed to wake up after GM looked into the room. At this point, CB would have had to get to her silently before she could cry out and then restrain/suffocate her without making any noise. Not impossible but IMO made more difficult by the fact that all the parents were primarily checking for noise.

Into the empty apartment next door.

MO stated that he only saw the corner of her bed. It is therefore more possible that CB picked MM up and restrained and possibly suffocated MM behind the door during this check. This means that there were no concerning sounds i.e. crying, calls for help or rapid adult physical movement coming from the apartment before MO entered and while inside (I may have dreamt it but I think I recall MO mentioning a disturbance during his check but I can’t find it in the PJ Files).

If all this is correct the Tannerman sighting can be ruled out as it happened before MO’s check but Smithman could have been CB with MM. All seems to be congruent with the opportunistic burglary/abduction.

The part of the theory that concerns me most is CB exiting with MM’s corpse. CB is a career criminal with perverted and psychopathic behaviour. If he unintentionally killed MM, I see only two reasons why he might remove her corpse. The first option is that he panicked and without much thought left 5A carrying MM. This doesn’t seem to fit his profile, he frequently put himself in high-stress situations. The other option is that he made an assessment that it was less risky to leave and carry her corpse to a car or other safe location wherever that may be, rather than leave her corpse in 5A with the potential he might be linked to the crime forensically. I find it hard (not impossible) to believe that in that situation, he thought leaving with MM’s corpse at 9:30-10:00pm was the less risky option.

 

[Newthoughts]

I think the Tannerman/Smithman sightings support your opportunist theory too. The likely planned abduction theory would suggest that a car would provide cover and a quick exit from the crime scene but there are practically no witness statements suggesting a car was involved. As we know, there are two statements which claim there was a child fitting MM’s description being carried by a man/men in the area at the right time. IMO the lack of any witnesses suggesting a car was involved makes at least one of these sightings more likely to be the true exit method, I can’t see why anyone would make a plan to leave the abduction location on foot.

If your theory is correct it seems more likely that the abuse/abduction occurred during MO’s check rather than GM’s. GM states that he actually looked in the room and all three kids were sound asleep. This means that for CB to be in 5A during GM’s check, he would have likely but not definitely, been in the kids room abusing MM, then when GM entered the apartment, he hid behind the door. While looking into the room GM had to have no awareness that CB was there. For your theory to be true, MM would have needed to wake up after GM looked into the room. At this point, CB would have had to get to her silently before she could cry out and then restrain/suffocate her without making any noise. Not impossible but IMO made more difficult by the fact that all the parents were primarily checking for noise.

MO stated that he only saw the corner of her bed. It is therefore more possible that CB picked MM up and restrained and possibly suffocated MM behind the door during this check. This means that there were no concerning sounds i.e. crying, calls for help or rapid adult physical movement coming from the apartment before MO entered and while inside (I may have dreamt it but I think I recall MO mentioning a disturbance during his check but I can’t find it in the PJ Files).

If all this is correct the Tannerman sighting can be ruled out as it happened before MO’s check but Smithman could have been CB with MM. All seems to be congruent with the opportunistic burglary/abduction.

The part of the theory that concerns me most is CB exiting with MM’s corpse. CB is a career criminal with perverted and psychopathic behaviour. If he unintentionally killed MM, I see only two reasons why he might remove her corpse. The first option is that he panicked and without much thought left 5A carrying MM. This doesn’t seem to fit his profile, he frequently put himself in high-stress situations. The other option is that he made an assessment that it was less risky to leave and carry her corpse to a car or other safe location wherever that may be, rather than leave her corpse in 5A with the potential he might be linked to the crime forensically. I find it hard (not impossible) to believe that in that situation, he thought leaving with MM’s corpse at 9:30-10:00pm was the less risky option.

Didn't RMs mother see a brown car going towards the appt?

Surely the lack of a car is the same whether he'd planned to abuse MM in situ or it was opportunistic. Only in a planned abduction would lack of car be unusual. Even then his camper van and jag were noticeable vehicles whereas an ordinary looking bloke carrying a child is not - as we know because the two sightings did not arouse any suspicion in the witnesses that saw them

How many of us look out onto a car park and notice what's there? Unless the vehicle is noteworthy which, admittedly, both of his were.

All just opinions and I'm not necessarily disagreeing.

Tannerman timing has always confused me as it seems too close to GMs check to be viable. I think it was the British guy carrying his child back. If it wasn't then MM was taken very quickly after that check.

 

[redplanet]

MO did hear a noise during his check. Possibly similar to someone turning over in bed. As noted in this article. To find the original source, I think maybe it is in a video in which he verbally describes the check in detail? Maybe the Cutting Edge documentary?
Maddie abductor could have been caught in the act, Netflix doc claims

 

[Lilly b]

Didn't RMs mother see a brown car going towards the appt?

Surely the lack of a car is the same whether he'd planned to abuse MM in situ or it was opportunistic. Only in a planned abduction would lack of car be unusual. Even then his camper van and jag were noticeable vehicles whereas an ordinary looking bloke carrying a child is not - as we know because the two sightings did not arouse any suspicion in the witnesses that saw them

How many of us look out onto a car park and notice what's there? Unless the vehicle is noteworthy which, admittedly, both of his were.

All just opinions and I'm not necessarily disagreeing.

Tannerman timing has always confused me as it seems too close to GMs check to be viable. I think it was the British guy carrying his child back. If it wasn't then MM was taken very quickly after that check.

He also had a white van and a grey opal asconda or something like that

 

[MENDEL]

MO did hear a noise during his check. Possibly similar to someone turning over in bed. As noted in this article. To find the original source, I think maybe it is in a video in which he verbally describes the check in detail? Maybe the Cutting Edge documentary?
Maddie abductor could have been caught in the act, Netflix doc claims

If this helps, MO forgot to mention any such noise the day after in his statement:

"At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light was not from an artificial source inside the apartment, but perhaps something coming from outside through the bedroom window."​

 

[mrjitty]

What do you mean by evidential points? HCW has already stated they do have concrete evidence and they know how she died. So this should cut through all theories.

Clearly not sufficient to charge anyone

 

[mrjitty]

CB was perhaps discarded for the same reason that OG didn't show any interest in him. My guess.

FF seems to have lots of info on CB's number or numbers so perhaps PJ at least knew the number (or numbers).

The PDL call log for May 2-4, 2007 was requested to operators in May 2007 and covered all calls made within the area, both local and roaming. DM is funny. Any LE uses geographical mobile data on any major crime.

+1

The thing is, just because a bunch of numbers are in the trawl, what then?

How shall investigators connect any particular suspect to the crime without a break in the case?

 

[Lilly b]

+1

The thing is, just because a bunch of numbers are in the trawl, what then?

How shall investigators connect any particular suspect to the crime without a break in the case?

Because people come forward, as they have done, and its several different people that put CB's name forward, that's how a lot of cases get solved, especially when those said people fall out etc, the difference with this case is how old it is, but now we need that bit more, and it's not about which window or door break in, or door unlocked like I said before, whatabout when they found girls swimwear in Germany, people could of come forward about that, whether it's just someone remembering that happening, or more sinister, we don't know, could it be that CB took a swimsuit of mm, let's face it, GM and km may not of noticed, as they were so distraught, they didn't notice.
We do need to think a little out the box

 

[Lilly b]

This was in a few newspapers, this was from news opener.
It's also a story daily mail 5th June 2020

The new lead suspect in the Madeleine McCann case could have been spotted checking out the family’s holiday apartment in the days leading up to her disappearance.

Photos of German paedophile Christian Brueckner released yesterday match the description of a suspicious man spotted by people four times in Praia da Luz around May 3, 2007, when Maddie was taken.

And e-fit pictures of two men – who may actually be the same person – released by police in a 2013 appeal also share similarities to the suspect.

Holidaymakers and locals in the Portguese resort town who gave evidence to investigators 13 years ago talked about a ‘blond male with a pockmarked face’ who stalked the McCann’s apartment block, but lead never generated any results

 

[peanutJelly]

This was in a few newspapers, this was from news opener.
It's also a story daily mail 5th June 2020

The new lead suspect in the Madeleine McCann case could have been spotted checking out the family’s holiday apartment in the days leading up to her disappearance.

Photos of German paedophile Christian Brueckner released yesterday match the description of a suspicious man spotted by people four times in Praia da Luz around May 3, 2007, when Maddie was taken.

And e-fit pictures of two men – who may actually be the same person – released by police in a 2013 appeal also share similarities to the suspect.

Holidaymakers and locals in the Portguese resort town who gave evidence to investigators 13 years ago talked about a ‘blond male with a pockmarked face’ who stalked the McCann’s apartment block, but lead never generated any results

I guess the problem at the time was there seemed to be so many suspicious looking people hanging around. Most were probably innocent, so how to pick out the genuine odd ones?!? After a crime, it’s not unusual for people to be going about normal business later being seen as dodgy as memory is so fluid and malleable based on later knowledge