Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #20

[Anxala]

The missing blue bag is a curious story though, it must have come from somewhere. I'm aware Clarence Mitchell denying GM even owned such a bag, yet in David Payne's statement he alludes to GM having some kind of bag when playing tennis.

Just to return to this briefly, ^ I agree, it is curious and it does make you wonder where its origins are.

Just as a sidenote, DP was never questioned about a blue tennis bag. He was just asked if GM used a kit bag to carry his tennis stuff around with him and DP, as we know from his rogatory, went to great (not to mention comically erm eh yeah no inarticulate) pains to explain and confirm that any bag GM might have used in the transporting of his rackets/balls/kit/water etc was only of a size to barely 'hide' a tennis racket. 'A rucksack' seemed to be the exhausted conclusion. No mention of it being blue or any other colour.

FWIW, that blue bag in the wardrobe looked more like a standard travel bag/soft suitcase than a sports bag to me.

But yes, still curious.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

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.

If the plan is to rob the apartment or abuse a child in the apartment then a car IMO is not an important part of the plan. But that’s not what happened, MM was abducted and a man who has never come forward was seen carrying a child fitting her description.

In the cold light of day, I think it is far more logical that it was a planned, efficient abduction but CB is not a confirmed abductor and the only real evidence of a plan is the comment from his GF. Probably a more important point to support the planning theory is the complete lack of other evidence - IMO, no forensics, no witnesses, no noise, no suspicion from the checkers IMP all weaken the opportunistic/accidental death theory but they certainly don’t rule it out as a possibility.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

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.

If the plan is to rob the apartment or abuse a child in the apartment then a car IMO is not an important part of the plan. But that’s not what happened, MM was abducted and a man who has never come forward was seen carrying a child fitting her description.

In the cold light of day, I think it is far more logical that it was a planned, efficient abduction but CB is not a confirmed abductor and the only real evidence of a plan is the comment from his GF. Probably a more important point to support the planning theory is the complete lack of other evidence - IMO, no forensics, no witnesses, no noise, no suspicion from the checkers IMP all weaken the opportunistic/accidental death theory but they certainly don’t rule it out as a possibility.

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

Thank you. Do you have a link for the documentary you mention.

 

[redplanet]

Just to return to this briefly, ^ I agree, it is curious and it does make you wonder where its origins are.

Just as a sidenote, DP was never questioned about a blue tennis bag. He was just asked if GM used a kit bag to carry his tennis stuff around with him and DP, as we know from his rogatory, went to great (not to mention comically erm eh yeah no inarticulate) pains to explain and confirm that any bag GM might have used in the transporting of his rackets/balls/kit/water etc was only of a size to barely 'hide' a tennis racket. 'A rucksack' seemed to be the exhausted conclusion. No mention of it being blue or any other colour.

FWIW, that blue bag in the wardrobe looked more like a standard travel bag/soft suitcase than a sports bag to me.

But yes, still curious.

Agreed, visible in wardrobe is a standard travel bag/soft suitcase.
IMO to carry luggage between Leicestershire and PdL.

 

[Okapi]

Yes dlk and red planet, the suggestion that the toy was cross contaminated from clothes in the wardrobe makes sense for explaining Cuddle Cat.

But, I struggle to think how/why if the perp has just killed a child, and a caregiver could return at any moment, he would then place the body in the wardrobe in the parents' room. Unless the wardrobe contamination occurred because he looked through it after the death, and transfer came from gloves he was wearing. Surely though he would be out of there asap with or without the body?

I do agree MrJitty that "raking over the 5a coals" cannot confirm any conclusion of what actually happened. I'm just exploring the possibilities around the hypothesis offered by dlk that CB killed MBM in the apartment, because tbh it's first time I'd encountered that specific theory.

As far as the dogs are concerned, my theories were based on mainstream media sources, and in particular these indicated that Eddie was trained to alert, certainly in the initial sweep, for a cadaver as opposed to mere blood. I would appreciate if anyone can advise me yea or nay on that.

Also haden, the Exposing the Myths site is very interesting, but respectfully a genuine question, is it an acceptable source to quote on WS?

 

[Dlk79]

If the plan is to rob the apartment or abuse a child in the apartment then a car IMO is not an important part of the plan. But that’s not what happened, MM was abducted and a man who has never come forward was seen carrying a child fitting her description.

In the cold light of day, I think it is far more logical that it was a planned, efficient abduction but CB is not a confirmed abductor and the only real evidence of a plan is the comment from his GF. Probably a more important point to support the planning theory is the complete lack of other evidence - IMO, no forensics, no witnesses, no noise, no suspicion from the checkers IMP all weaken the opportunistic/accidental death theory but they certainly don’t rule it out as a possibility.

I don't know how can say with certainty "that's not what happened". Even if we accept your point the perpetrator WAS the man who hasn't come forward seen carrying a girl fitting MM's description (I assume you mean the Smith sighting), how do you know the girl was alive at this point?

Can understand why you prefer the planned theory, they're mostly the same reasons why I first tended toward it. But then, there are other aspects which make more sense in an opportunist crime which I've outlined previously. Also, cannot underestimate the power of luck. CB would have been forensically aware whatever reason he went into that apartment with the attention of. And I don't particularly see why lack of witnesses or noise (which requires a witness to hear) weaken the opportunist theory either. If there was nobody there at that time to see it or hear it, makes no difference whether it was a planned abduction or not. Same goes with suspicion by the checkers. They spent a few minutes at most in the apartment over those 1 and a half hours they were dining, it leaves a lot of time where anything could have happened.

 

[haden]

As far as the dogs are concerned, my theories were based on mainstream media sources, and in particular these indicated that Eddie was trained to alert, certainly in the initial sweep, for a cadaver as opposed to mere blood. I would appreciate if anyone can advise me yea or nay on that.

Also haden, the Exposing the Myths site is very interesting, but respectfully a genuine question, is it an acceptable source to quote on WS?

From Martin Grime, the dog's trainer, rogatory questioning ( about Eddie, the cadaver dog):

"The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver'
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being."
P.J. POLICE FILES: MARTIN GRIME ROGATORY LETTERS

This above is about Eddie.

Eddie alerts to something. Eddie is an indication. Police then take samples from places where Eddie alerted and examines the area for potential DNA samples.
One of the very interesting facts that are maybe not known is that places where the dogs alerted found the DNA of MMs family, people who previously stayed at 5 A and also two PJ officers.....

 

[C.greek]

Old news I know but what exactly does HCW mean with this statement?

"Here in Germany our Public Ministry only divulges things when they are solid."

If they have material and concrete evidence, isn't that solid? Or does he mean they will divulge info when/if they can charge CB?

I am actually wondering, why they cannot let her parents know about how MM died so that they can start accepting the fact and find some kind of peace, regardless if CB is charged or not?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I don't know how can say with certainty "that's not what happened". Even if we accept your point the perpetrator WAS the man who hasn't come forward seen carrying a girl fitting MM's description (I assume you mean the Smith sighting), how do you know the girl was alive at this point?

Can understand why you prefer the planned theory, they're mostly the same reasons why I first tended toward it. But then, there are other aspects which make more sense in an opportunist crime which I've outlined previously. Also, cannot underestimate the power of luck. CB would have been forensically aware whatever reason he went into that apartment with the attention of. And I don't particularly see why lack of witnesses or noise (which requires a witness to hear) weaken the opportunist theory either. If there was nobody there at that time to see it or hear it, makes no difference whether it was a planned abduction or not. Same goes with suspicion by the checkers. They spent a few minutes at most in the apartment over those 1 and a half hours they were dining, it leaves a lot of time where anything could have happened.

I meant not only a burglary or abuse took place, an abduction took place and if it were planned then it would make sense to put a car in that plan. Regarding Smithman, I didn’t state she was alive or dead simply that a girl fitting MM’s was being carried - if you mean because I used the word abduction, please cut me some slack.

Not sure you saw my prior post in which I commented on your original 10 point post, I covered my thoughts on noise in that. Simply put, getting from a hiding place to a child and suffocating her to death while someone is in a very small apartment and doing so silently probably isn’t easy.

 

[Dlk79]

I meant not only a burglary or abuse took place, an abduction took place and if it were planned then it would make sense to put a car in that plan. Regarding Smithman, I didn’t state she was alive or dead simply that a girl fitting MM’s was being carried - if you mean because I used the word abduction, please cut me some slack.

Not sure you saw my prior post in which I commented on your original 10 point post, I covered my thoughts on noise in that. Simply put, getting from a hiding place to a child and suffocating her to death while someone is in a very small apartment and doing so silently probably isn’t easy.

Apologies if I've misunderstood what you meant, but as I pointed out previously, it is only technically an abduction or kidnap if she were alive when she was taken out of the apartment. It sounded like you were making that assertion that she had to have been alive based on the sighting.

Suffocating a child might involve some noise, but not much really. We are talking about a fully grown man overpowering a toddler. There would be no great struggle, possibly a brief cry/scream before he covered her mouth. And this could have all easily happened when nobody was around to hear it anyway. JMO.

 

[Newthoughts]

If the plan is to rob the apartment or abuse a child in the apartment then a car IMO is not an important part of the plan. But that’s not what happened, MM was abducted and a man who has never come forward was seen carrying a child fitting her description.

In the cold light of day, I think it is far more logical that it was a planned, efficient abduction but CB is not a confirmed abductor and the only real evidence of a plan is the comment from his GF. Probably a more important point to support the planning theory is the complete lack of other evidence - IMO, no forensics, no witnesses, no noise, no suspicion from the checkers IMP all weaken the opportunistic/accidental death theory but they certainly don’t rule it out as a possibility.

I share your opinion that a planned abduction seems more plausible than the accidental death and for similar reasons. Ground floor accessible appt, parents absent for most of evening, sightings of the appt being watched. It presented an ideal opportunity to abduct.

I meant not only a burglary or abuse took place, an abduction took place and if it were planned then it would make sense to put a car in that plan. Regarding Smithman, I didn’t state she was alive or dead simply that a girl fitting MM’s was being carried - if you mean because I used the word abduction, please cut me some slack.

Not sure you saw my prior post in which I commented on your original 10 point post, I covered my thoughts on noise in that. Simply put, getting from a hiding place to a child and suffocating her to death while someone is in a very small apartment and doing so silently probably isn’t easy.

I also think there would have been evidence of an accidental death. There were no signs at all of a struggle

 

[Dlk79]

I also think there would have been evidence of an accidental death. There were no signs at all of a struggle

What kind of signs of a struggle would you expect to see though? We are taking about a helpless toddler. Taking the scenario of a suffocation or strangulation (most likely methods if an unplanned murder is what took place), where no bleeding would have occurred, what other inidcations might you find at the scene to be able to say that it had happened? A ruffled bedsheet doesn't take much fixing, besides it might not have even happened on her bed, maybe she tried to run to her parents room for example.

You mention there would be evidence of an accidental death if it had happened, but potentially there is. The cadaver dog's alert. It's what led the initial investigation to think MM had died in the apartment. And it is still in theory possible that the dog might have picked up an early scent in this unplanned murder scenario.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Apologies if I've misunderstood what you meant, but as I pointed out previously, it is only technically an abduction or kidnap if she were alive when she was taken out of the apartment. It sounded like you were making that assertion that she had to have been alive based on the sighting.

Suffocating a child might involve some noise, but not much really. We are talking about a fully grown man overpowering a toddler. There would be no great struggle, possibly a brief cry/scream before he covered her mouth. And this could have all easily happened when nobody was around to hear it anyway. JMO.

No worries, I’m not precious just adding to the debate about your theory which I think is a good one.

On the point in your second paragraph, I am asking you to consider the context. If CB was in there to rob or abuse, what reason, other than to avoid detection, would he have to suffocate MM? He had a history of burglary and entering rooms to abuse/expose himself but didn’t kill anyone. IMO, this indicates that the suffocation was likely accidental and in this scenario, CB was carrying out the suffocation (silently) while the checker was in the apartment ... primarily checking for noise.

In support of your theory I think there are a few points concerning MO’s check which support it. The door was open to 50 degrees, potentially to hide someone behind it. He didn’t see MM. In hindsight, he mentioned the disturbance he heard in the room - real or imagined I think MO himself suspects that someone could have been in the room during his check.

 

[MENDEL]

If the plan is to rob the apartment or abuse a child in the apartment then a car IMO is not an important part of the plan. But that’s not what happened, MM was abducted and a man who has never come forward was seen carrying a child fitting her description.

In the cold light of day, I think it is far more logical that it was a planned, efficient abduction but CB is not a confirmed abductor and the only real evidence of a plan is the comment from his GF. Probably a more important point to support the planning theory is the complete lack of other evidence - IMO, no forensics, no witnesses, no noise, no suspicion from the checkers IMP all weaken the opportunistic/accidental death theory but they certainly don’t rule it out as a possibility.

Denis, I must congratulate your sharp, solid, and plausible argumentation. All possible logical deductions are there under assumption nothing was planned. And that's a real possibility until further evidence be available.

 

[Dlk79]

On the point in your second paragraph, I am asking you to consider the context. If CB was in there to rob or abuse, what reason, other than to avoid detection, would he have to suffocate MM? He had a history of burglary and entering rooms to abuse/expose himself but didn’t kill anyone. IMO, this indicates that the suffocation was likely accidental and in this scenario, CB was carrying out the suffocation (silently) while the checker was in the apartment ... primarily checking for noise.

That's entirely plausible, that he might not have intended to actually kill her, merely silence her. And it doesn't necessarily have to been taking place during MO's check. If she had woken and began to panic and cry out, he might have simply done it in case anyone was within earshot outside or a neighbouring apartment.

There are other options too. It might have been deliberate, if she began making a commotion he might have simply panicked himself. Or perhaps he was concerned that by simply running from the scene his exit route might not be clear and with a screaming girl altering on his exit he could be caught red handed. If his initial plan was to burgle, but then decided to abuse instead, he might not have had a proper exit strategy planned like he might have done for a planned abuse. Or there's the other option I mentioned previously which is that perhaps he was concerned his DNA was on her body from where he was abusing her, and this is why he also took her body. Or she may have scrammed at his hand while he had it over her mouth, DNA then possibly being under her fingernails. All just hypothetical but all still plausible options, as is your suggestion based on the evidence available IMO.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

That's entirely plausible, that he might not have intended to actually kill her, merely silence her. And it doesn't necessarily have to been taking place during MO's check. If she had woken and began to panic and cry out, he might have simply done it in case anyone was within earshot outside or a neighbouring apartment.

There are other options too. It might have been deliberate, if she began making a commotion he might have simply panicked himself. Or perhaps he was concerned that by simply running from the scene his exit route might not be clear and with a screaming girl altering on his exit he could be caught red handed. If his initial plan was to burgle, but then decided to abuse instead, he might not have had a proper exit strategy planned like he might have done for a planned abuse. Or there's the other option I mentioned previously which is that perhaps he was concerned his DNA was on her body from where he was abusing her, and this is why he also took her body. Or she may have scrammed at his hand while he had it over her mouth, DNA then possibly being under her fingernails. All just hypothetical but all still plausible options, as is your suggestion based on the evidence available IMO.

To a degree, you are changing your theory to include other reasons other than CB avoiding detection, as a reason to kill her. If she starts making noise and no one is there, why kill MM instead of just leaving the apartment. The second option is far more consistent with his previous behaviour and leaving without carrying a stolen child (dead or alive) is significantly less risky than leaving with one which has to be the case in your original theory.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I share your opinion that a planned abduction seems more plausible than the accidental death and for similar reasons. Ground floor accessible appt, parents absent for most of evening, sightings of the appt being watched. It presented an ideal opportunity to abduct.

I also think there would have been evidence of an accidental death. There were no signs at all of a struggle

What is more plausible and what happened could be two very different things. As Dlk mentioned before, some of it could be dumb luck on CB’s part and he has IMO opinion put up good points which are supported by some facts in the case. A bungled burglary/opportunistic abuse with accidental death and luck from an evidence perspective doesn’t have the perhaps alluring qualities of a well planned abduction by a sophisticated paedo ring for dark web productions but given what we know about CB, it is equally as possible.

 

[redplanet]

About the stain. A useful source is the book by KM. She noticed it during breakfast on Thu. However she had not noticed anything there at child bedtime on Wed. From that I conclude it IMO did not yet exist at child bedtime on Wed. Because IMO if it existed it would have been noticed. Also she states it did not occur during breakfast on Thu. So is it reasonable to think it may have occured in the time period after bedtime and before breakfast???

 

[redplanet]

Unfortunately methods of keeping a victim quiet may include placing a clothing item in the mouth which happened at the 2005 attack on a US victim according to
Maddie McCann suspect's rape case bungled by police 2 years before she vanished

 

[snowpea666]

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

and an old yellow/mustard car also I think ?