MOs check was a minimal glance through a partly open door. He's said as much. They weren't expecting children to disappear. So anyone could have been in the bedroom - or not. MM might have been gone by the n
GM didn't go to his room or he'd have said so. But he did enter the small holiday apartment thru a door that pretty much faces the whole appt. A three bedroom house maybe CB could have hidden. But a small holiday appt? I find that hard to believe.
CBs rapes took time and planning. The grooming of his gf to abuse her daughter took time and planning. He's a vile creature. The rewards are greater if he takes MM
The problem with your argument is that you are making several assumptions about the abuse in situ vs abduction scenarios that are not necessarily accurate.
1. You're assuming CBs motive from the start was to abuse MM. It might not have been, but upon finding her there, his sexual deviance came into play. So for example, if the original intent was a burglary, making the jump from burglary to abuse attempt (where the plan is not to wake her) isn't that difficult to believe, yet the jump from burglary to abduction would be massive.
2. CB would not have stayed there for ages as it was too risky. This is wrong on 2 points. Firstly, it is easier to remain concealed in the apartment where only 2 people are known to be checking in, than leaving with MM into the open unknown. Secondly, nobody is proposing that he meant to stay there for a long time, just that the time he was in there might have overlapped with a check. His plan might have been just a quick abuse attempt then leave, but after killing MM (accidentally?) he was forced to stay longer while he figured a plan to get her body out of there.
3. CB knew the parents were doing regular checks. Again, we don't know that he did know that. He might simply have seen them leaving for dinner and assumed that he had more time until they would be returning. Or, if he did have prior knowledge of check frequency, he may again have assumed he'd have more time. According to PF, MM cried for over an hour before her parents returned. If CB had been monitoring this night, he could have based how much time he had on that. We don't really know for sure how often the checks were really taking place.
4. CBs rapes show they took time and planning which reinforces that CB would have abducted MM. I don't get that. We only know of one rape, the DM one, which was an abuse in situ so that doesn't back up the argument for an abduction really. He could have abducted DM just as easily, what with her living in a remote villa, that would also reduce the risk of being disturbed in the act or leaving DNA at the scene. He didn't, he was quite happy to take the risk of doing it there. If the other rape you are referring to is the HB one, that was also abuse in situ and involved the same risk factors. You are also completely ignoring all the other depraved acts CB carried out that were massively risky, such as the playground masturbation, exposing himself in public, hiding under his girfriends bed or masturbating in front of a room of sleeping schoolgirls to name a few. When it comes to MM, you assume CB is being some highly logical thinking, careful criminal when he has shown on many occasion to be anything but that when it comes to his perversions.
5. There was nowhere to hide in the apartment. There was. I pointed out at least 3 places he might have been able to hide. You dismiss them without any reason other than finding it hard to believe. As for being no evidence that he entered any other room, of course there isn't! There's no evidence he even went in the apartment so how would there be specific evidence of what rooms he went into? By the same token, there's no evidence that he didn't go into those other rooms either to be able to discount the possibility.
6. The rewards are greater if he takes MM so that enforces the theory he abducted her. But who's to say the reward of abusing MM in situ wasn't enough for CB? Besides, as well as the rewards being greater, so are the risks. And that my biggest issue with this whole counterargument, the "risk" factor. People are dimissing the abuse in situ scenario on the basis CB wouldn't risk staying in the apartment for long, even though his plan would probably have involved a quick abuse that would have gone unnoticed if MM hadn't woke up. Yet the same people are quite happy to believe CB would take the risk of still entering the apartment (for a slightly shorter amount of time), pick up a sleeping MM, wander off outside with her (where he could now bump into anyone) and take her somewhere further away, knowing that everyone in the land is going to be looking for them. If there's anything that makes no sense, it's that argument that an abuse in situ was more "risky" than an abduction. It's total nonsense.
