Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #21

[Newthoughts]

Simplifying even further... The in-situ theory is workable even if his initial motive is simply burglary, and even if he has no knowledge there are children present. Like this: After dusk he sees a couple leaving their apartment, turning almost all the lights out as they leave. He deduces the couple have gone out for dinner or drinks, and there is no-one left in the apartment. So he commences to enter the apartment which he confidently believes is now empty of people, intending to burgle it (just like 5L and 4A earlier that year). But as soon as he enters 5A, everything changes.

Except he is not just a burglar. From his convictions we know he's a monster that enjoys hurting people including children.


There are witness statements suggesting the appt was watched. There is a witness statements from a previous tourists who had children whose baby sitter found a man hanging round


There was the perfect opportunity - I can imagine the Tapas 7s behaviour was commented upon if not with malice then with incredulity

And he entered the easiest appt with a child - the one offering the easiest way in and out. Not 5L or 4A.

 

[Dlk79]

They are moot because he DID abduct a small child. And in whatever scenario you look at he had to enter the appt and leave it.

It's not abduction if MM was already dead. The transportation and concealement of a dead body carries less complications than moving her while alive. Regardless though, you are again ignoring the point i'm arguing, so i'll ask outright.

Why do you think abducting a child from an apartment is less risky than abusing a child in an apartment?

The abuse need only take a matter of minutes more stay in the apartment than abducting her would. And with abduction comes a whole host of further risks and complications. Far more complicated than hiding behind a door. As soon as he leaves the apartment, he has to hide himself and MM from anyone who might be passing for a start.

 

[redplanet]

Except he is not just a burglar. From his convictions we know he's a monster that enjoys hurting people including children.


There are witness statements suggesting the appt was watched. There is a witness statements from a previous tourists who had children whose baby sitter found a man hanging round


There was the perfect opportunity - I can imagine the Tapas 7s behaviour was commented upon if not with malice then with incredulity

And he entered the easiest appt with a child - the one offering the easiest way in and out. Not 5L or 4A.

5F 4A and 4F were IMO every bit as vulnerable as 5A; end of block, window on carpark side accessible to burglars, sliding doors on south side accessible to burglars, they also have exact-same or exact-mirror room layout.

 

[redplanet]

Except he is not just a burglar. From his convictions we know he's a monster that enjoys hurting people including children.


There are witness statements suggesting the appt was watched. There is a witness statements from a previous tourists who had children whose baby sitter found a man hanging round


There was the perfect opportunity - I can imagine the Tapas 7s behaviour was commented upon if not with malice then with incredulity

And he entered the easiest appt with a child - the one offering the easiest way in and out. Not 5L or 4A.

It appears however that at some properties he entered with the sole intention of burglary.

 

[Lilly b]

It's not abduction if MM was already dead. The transportation and concealement of a dead body carries less complications than moving her while alive. Regardless though, you are again ignoring the point i'm arguing, so i'll ask outright.

Why do you think abducting a child from an apartment is less risky than abusing a child in an apartment?

The abuse need only take a matter of minutes more stay in the apartment than abducting her would. And with abduction comes a whole host of further risks and complications. Far more complicated than hiding behind a door. As soon as he leaves the apartment, he has to hide himself and MM from anyone who might be passing for a start.

This is just a thought, so if he killed her in the apartment, why not then just leave her there?

 

[Newthoughts]

It's not abduction if MM was already dead. The transportation and concealement of a dead body carries less complications than moving her while alive. Regardless though, you are again ignoring the point i'm arguing, so i'll ask outright.

Why do you think abducting a child from an apartment is less risky than abusing a child in an apartment?

The abuse need only take a matter of minutes more stay in the apartment than abducting her would. And with abduction comes a whole host of further risks and complications. Far more complicated than hiding behind a door. As soon as he leaves the apartment, he has to hide himself and MM from anyone who might be passing for a start.

I think in the circumstances we are discussing and the type of person CB appears to be - abduction is the most likely and least risky.

Her parents were returning periodically. His time and opportunity were limited. He was in someone else's flat. If caught there was no explanation.

Hiding in a small appt is not easy. It would not take GM long to get from the patio doors to MMs room. Hard for him to think about where to go to hide. No evidence exists of him.hiding. Hiding behind a door is difficult - nobody can be completely silent.

Once outside on the other hand he was just an ordinary looking bloke with a child. A very common sight in a tourist area. No reason to challenge him. Even if she woke.

We know two such events were witnessed (Smith's and JT) and they did not stop him or even think about it as odd till afterwards.

If I'd seen a man carrying a child I wouldn't think about it - I'd assume it was a father and child.

In short getting our asap would remove him from a risky situation to a more secure one straight away.

Also for your argument about the inherent risks in taking her to work - he'd have to have left her behind. If she was dead (and knowing what little we do know about him I hope the poor kid was) she wasn't a risk to him. Either way the police were going to be searching for him. Why take her?

In short I think the risks were higher every second he was in the appt and decreased the minute he got clear of the door

 

[axelcruze]

I feel that if they can trial CB then he will crack, he's not particularly clever, has ignored past summons and also pleaded guilty in his criminal history thus far, and his lawyer has no idea of the Prosecution case against his client as it stands. the tapas accounts, timings and location data may not be as relevant as we think. Pictures have time stamps and mast location data too, hence why they think she was murdered and CB did it - his camera possibly linked to an image a f he drunkly boasted to HB in a bar. As yet though, nobody has placed CB or anyone in Pdl on that day/time. The witness reports didn't look like CB or they were from days previous. The mobile number is not necessarily his as they can't confirm this with the other person on this call, meaning CB could argue it was stolen or can't remember, or even give an alibi. Intriguing to say the least but I'm confident.

 

[Lilly b]

I feel that if they can trial CB then he will crack, he's not particularly clever and his lawyer has no idea of the HCW case against his client as it stands. the tapas accounts, timings and location data may not be as relevant as we think. Pictures have time stamps and location data too, hence why they think she was murdered and CB did it - his camera possibly linked to an image. As yet though, nobody has placed CB or anyone in Pdl on that day/time. The witness reports didn't look like CB or they were from days previous. The mobile number is not necessarily his as they can't confirm this with the other person on this call, meaning CB could argue it was stolen or can't remember, or even give an alibi. Intriguing to say the least but I'm confident.

And don't forget as reported yesterday or day before some English tourist, have come forward with pictures, could put him in PDL on that day

 

[redplanet]

This is just a thought, so if he killed her in the apartment, why not then just leave her there?

A good question. BKA claim CB acted alone in this case, but seperately BKA claim others may know the course of events and even the eventual location. In what scenario do those 2 claims not contradict each other? What if CB panics and flees from the apartment leaving the evidence in there. But next what if some other person/s independently enters and removes that evidence?

 

[SuperdadV8]

Somebody that "fantasizes" about snatching a small one and "use" it for days to torture it, is likely an abductor?

Have a nice weekend, i'm looking forward for HCW to tighten the knot!

MM's parents need to know, what happened to their baby! Much more than everybody needs some kind of trial. JMO!

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Somebody that "fantasizes" about snatching a small one and "use" it for days to torture it, is likely an abductor?

Have a nice weekend, i'm looking forward for HCW to tighten the knot!

MM's parents need to know, what happened to their baby! Much more than everybody needs some kind of trial. JMO!

I may be wrong but I imagine that abduction is an advanced crime for most who commit it. In other words, someone might expose them self to children, then abuse children, then ultimately abduct and murder them. If this is true, what causes the crimes and fantasies to escalate? Could getting away with abduction, even though it wasn’t the primary objective in a former crime, enable this. Six years on from abducting MM, CB could be a different criminal because of this experience. All IMO.

 

[SuperdadV8]

I am a big enthusiast of
simplification.....

Time-window of at least 30 minutes to get the bait?!

Like a typical burglar!

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I know that all this back and fourth is getting tedious but I welcome the ongoing debate, it distils theories IMO down to what might have actually happened.

The known facts are somebody entered the appt and left again with a child. She was last seen at 9.05 ish and by 10 she was gone.

I agree, at its most rudimentary level this is the crime. Other smaller things also happened which we can use to try and understand HOW the crime occurred.

The simplest explanation is that he entered the flat knowing her parents were out and left again as soon as possible taking her with him. It fits the facts and it fits witness statements.

It’s a simple explanation yes but I disagree that it fits the facts. The kids bedroom door was opened between GM and KM leaving and GM checking it at 9:05pm, at this time he put it back to it’s original position. At MO’s check, 25 minutes later the door is open again. Then 30 mins later, when KM checks the window of the kids bedroom is open. These are facts too that suggest an intruder was in the apartment for an extended period. Why are you selectively ignoring these facts?

Looking at most cases I'm aware of - paedophiles groom parents or children or they grab them and take them elsewhere. The groomed survive the horrors. The abducted sadly don't according to stats.

You are using a generalisation to explain what happened in a specific case. I think it’s fine to use statistics to guide theories but In an individual case, anything can happen. Looking at the facts of a case and then trying to retro-fit it into what normally happens is IMO a mistake.

No trace of the child has since been found despite the interests of the worlds press and LE from 3 countries

No physical trace has been found but HCW does have something or we wouldn’t be on this forum now.

I would like you to examine your argument here though too. You are using the lack of physical evidence to argue that MM was abducted alive and well, taken to another location, abused and murdered there and then presumably dumped somewhere else? If she were abused and killed in situ, then dumped immediately afterwards surely you would agree that this would leave fewer traces?

Other scenarios add complications. He has to silently hide. He has to waste time and pleasure by remaining alert. He's hardly the brightest pervert so simplest seems best

From what we already know man is a monster in prison for monstrous crimes[/QUOTE

Don’t you think that complications could have been added to a burglary or abuse in situ precisely because, “He’s hardly the brightest pervert ...”. Can you not imagine CB really making a huge disaster out of this? Come on, he’s a proven impulsive, ego-driven, pervert. He could have inadvertently killed and then taken MM out of sheer panic because of what he’d done to her.

He may be a monster but that doesn’t prove he only commits simple, sense making crimes.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

This is just a thought, so if he killed her in the apartment, why not then just leave her there?

Definitely the hardest thing to explain in this theory - it had to be an “oh f$&?”” moment or he needed to get rid of DNA.

 

[SuperdadV8]

Jos B. has been sentenced to 12,5 years for murdering Nicky V. today!

According to the circumstances of the evidence situation, it looks as a success to me.

The last 6-12 months made me think,
legislative branches and judiciary
are taking the mostly "swept under the carpet" - social problem of paedophilia finally more seriously.

Good!

(Sorry for the off-topic!)

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I am a big enthusiast of
simplification.....

Time-window of at least 30 minutes to get the bait?!

Like a typical burglar!

DBM

 

[SuperdadV8]

German efficiency

Well, germans like me aren't always that efficient. You maybe wouldn't believe how error-prone or impulsive most of us are. We are not working like machines and most of us can be very empathic.

But yes, sometimes we put efficiency above empathy. I do not really know why....

IMO, if the suspect wanted to remove a special "item" out of 5A, he had enough possibilites to do so, if you ask me!

To understand that, you might have to think like a person that is capable of snatching a three year old. I can only try to do so, like most of us i hope....

 

[Newthoughts]

I know that all this back and fourth is getting tedious but I welcome the ongoing debate, it distils theories IMO down to what might have actually happened.



I agree, at its most rudimentary level this is the crime. Other smaller things also happened which we can use to try and understand HOW the crime occurred.



It’s a simple explanation yes but I disagree that it fits the facts. The kids bedroom door was opened between GM and KM leaving and GM checking it at 9:05pm, at this time he put it back to it’s original position. At MO’s check, 25 minutes later the door is open again. Then 30 mins later, when KM checks the window of the kids bedroom is open. These are facts too that suggest an intruder was in the apartment for an extended period. Why are you selectively ignoring these facts?



You are using a generalisation to explain what happened in a specific case. I think it’s fine to use statistics to guide theories but In an individual case, anything can happen. Looking at the facts of a case and then trying to retro-fit it into what normally happens is IMO a mistake.



No physical trace has been found but HCW does have something or we wouldn’t be on this forum now.

I would like you to examine your argument here though too. You are using the lack of physical evidence to argue that MM was abducted alive and well, taken to another location, abused and murdered there and then presumably dumped somewhere else? If she were abused and killed in situ, then dumped immediately afterwards surely you would agree that this would leave fewer traces?



Don’t you think that complications could have been added to a burglary or abuse in situ precisely because, “He’s hardly the brightest pervert ...”. Can you not imagine CB really making a huge disaster out of this? Come on, he’s a proven impulsive, ego-driven, pervert. He could have inadvertently killed and then taken MM out of sheer panic because of what he’d done to her.

He may be a monster but that doesn’t prove he only commits simple, sense making crimes.

He could have done anything but to be brutally honest I don't think a man who seems to responsible for horrific rapes in various locations, who abused his gfs child and who fantasizes later on about capturing something small and torturing it is really going to be satisfied with what you're suggesting when there are opportunities to abduct. I hate saying this but I think his abuse would have left evidence even if he took care to ensure it wasn't his DNA left.

As for the door I'm not hung up on it because even if CB was in there at that point it doesn't mean he stayed after GM left or that he was there for long before. That door fits all scenarios because that was the last relevant check and it didn't concern GM at the time.

IMO MO didn't look very hard because he had no reason to. He was checking for crying not open windows or doors. Nor would he know what was usual or not. He thinks there 'might: have been an external light source door could have been open but he didn't see MMs bed. IMO he glanced in quickly and left. His statement is vague.

Nor do we know what the door was like on other nights. The McCanns didn't mention noticing anything the night crying was heard for example.

The window may well have been open at the point of MOs check and I doubt he'd notice. KM noticed it after the door blew shut. The door could then be blown further open by any breeze.

GM was not bothered by the door until after the event. We don't know who closed it before they left, I'd imagine they were eager to get out and relax cos 3 small children under 4 are exhausting.

IMO what HCW has will have nothing to do with 5A. The report gave them info that only the perp would know and the only thing I can think of that sounds relevant is something that matches something they've seen. Like how or where she died

 

[Dlk79]

He could have done anything but to be brutally honest I don't think a man who seems to responsible for horrific rapes in various locations, who abused his gfs child and who fantasizes later on about capturing something small and torturing it is really going to be satisfied with what you're suggesting when there are opportunities to abduct. I hate saying this but I think his abuse would have left evidence even if he took care to ensure it wasn't his DNA left.

As for the door I'm not hung up on it because even if CB was in there at that point it doesn't mean he stayed after GM left or that he was there for long before. That door fits all scenarios because that was the last relevant check and it didn't concern GM at the time.

IMO MO didn't look very hard because he had no reason to. He was checking for crying not open windows or doors. Nor would he know what was usual or not. He thinks there might have been an external light source. IMO he glanced in quickly and left

Nor do we know what the door was like on other nights. The McCanns didn't mention noticing anything the night crying was heard for example.

The window may well have been open at the point of MOs check and I doubt he'd notice. The door could then be blown further open by any breeze.

GM was not bothered by the door until after the event. We don't know who closed it before they left, I'd imagine they were eager to get out and relax cos 3 small children under 4 are exhausting.

IMO what HCW has will have nothing to do with 5A. The report gave them info that only the perp would know and the only thing I can think of that sounds relevant is something that matches something they've seen. Like how or where she died

Personally I disagree with your logic but have to say I have the utmost respect for you for engaging in the debate and putting your theory forward in detail, so thank you.

Let me ask you a question if you dont mind.

Take another hypothetical scenario in which all the facts of the case are identical to what we know now except for one difference. Imagine in this scenario that there was evidence of trauma within 5A, perhaps extensive blood stains belonging to MM were found in the apartment.

Would you still be saying that the abuse in situ/death in apartment/removal of body theory "makes no sense"? In this instance, where there is direct evidence of harm coming to MM within the apartment, would you still be of the opinion that what happened there was a planned abduction?

 

[Newthoughts]

Personally I disagree with your logic but have to say I have the utmost respect for you for engaging in the debate and putting your theory forward in detail, so thank you.

Let me ask you a question if you dont mind.

Take another hypothetical scenario in which all the facts of the case are identical to what we know now except for one difference. Imagine in this scenario that there was evidence of trauma within 5A, perhaps extensive blood stains belonging to MM were found in the apartment.

Would you still be saying that the abuse in situ/death in apartment/removal of body theory "makes no sense"? In this instance, where there is direct evidence of harm coming to MM within the apartment, would you still be of the opinion that what happened there was a planned abduction?

No. IMO that would fit your theory cos it would seem more like somebody acting on impulse there and then and then panicking.

No evidence of any abuse or struggle was found.

Your theory does rest on CB engaging in a much lower level of abuse than his convictions suggest he's capable of. That is the difference between us IMO.

Plus I think I'm more cynical about MOs statement