Hello everybody! I just signed up to this forum because I think it's an awesome forum!
I have followed this sad case from day one, found this thread while googling. Have been reading it almost from the start.
As others have observed, there are some really confusing aspects to this case. I just wanted to throw a few (hoepfully new) thoughts in here and see if someone can elaborate.
First, what has confused me most is the fact that LE was so quickly ready to charge MB with murder which most likely means they know or have strong evidence that she is dead. It was mentioned here that "forensics" must have pointed to that fact - but what forensics? Afaik DNA matching takes much longer than a couple of days. They arrested him on Tuesday afternoon and proceeded to question him and search his home and car(s). On Friday they announced the charges, that's roughly 72 hours. What could have transpired in such a short time frame that led them to make such a bold move? Especially because, as others have said here, it is very rare for someone to be charged with murder without a body being found.
So, if not DNA evidence, then what? The only things I can think of is photos or video - or a confession.
If they had found, for example, blood, or bloody clothes that were identified as her clothes, it would still not be 100% sure that she's dead.
Second, why did LE raid that couple's home (in another town/village I believe) a couple of days ago after some prankster claimed they had April? If they knew she is dead, and that MB was responsible, why go there and search for her? Just doesn't make sense.
On the other hand, the fact that there have been no more appeals by April's mother (or parents) on TV probably means that LE has told them what kind of evidence they have found (or that MB has confessed to killing her) and that the parents are also convinced that she is in fact dead. Otherwise, why would they stop appealing to the kidnapper to let her go, stop putting up flyers and such things? From what I have seen and read following cases such as this, parents usually don't stop their efforts to find their child after just a few days.
Third, I would not rely much at all on what the 7 year old who was with April said, not because she is a child but because eyewitnesses' memories are notoriously unreliable. It sounds absurd but simple things like what color an item was or how tall a person was and what they wore, etc, get distorted beyond recognition. Our memory is pretty unreliable. This is a fact, there have been studies about this, which everybody can google and read up on.
So which color the car was and which side April got in doesn't really bother me much.
Nevertheless, possibly based on what the 7 year old girl described, April's mother seemed to have an idea whose car it was. She immediately told LE this. So what happened then? I find it hard to believe that nobody knew where MB now lived (if it was indeed him she pointed out to LE), and that he didn't answer his phone?
But did she really name MB to LE? After all, he is the biological uncle of her other two children, he is family. Maybe he wasn't close family, but if an uncle of your child was reported taking your child away in his car would you immediately think she's been *abducted*? Especially since she's been on outings with him before. I would be perplexed, possibly annoyed, that uncle so-and-so took my daughter out to what appears to be a ride in his care without my permission, but I don't think I would immediatly call the police based on that. I would try to contact him, call him, drive to his house, but none of this was reported. Instead it was reported that a "search party" was immediately organized by neighbours. Why, if it was uncle Mark? The actions of April's mother and the neighbours look to me more like they thought a stranger had taken her. Or it could be that nobody liked and trusted MB, that there were ugly rumours and stories circling that involved him? But we have also heard that none of his friends and family thought he would be capable of something like this.
Lastly, another point that I find interesting (and kind of disturbing) is that the Judge at the hearing on Wednesday said "many" children will be testifying in January. Many? Why many? As far as we know there was a 7 year old girl and possibly a couple of others present when April climbed into that car. Would that be enough to say "many"? To me it sounds more like something else has been discovered about his past behaviour with children, to which those other "many" children will testify in court. (not a nice thought!)
What do you all think? Didn't you kind of stumble over that word "many"?
I'm sorry, this was a very long post for a newbie here! Please forgive me. I have been reading this thread for days and there is just so much I want to say and share.
My thoughts with April and their family!
