If the alleged robbers had guns, then why not murder C with the gun? Too loud? Why not murder B with the gun too and remove any witnesses?
In the videos the trainer states that the leader is probably the same person in both cases, as he's talked to B about this. Which suggests that the leader is the same as the "short one" mentioned in the press, who allegedly murdered C.
So the leader has upped the level of his (criminal) game from a few years ago when he robbed the trainer, because he's now arming his gang, with guns. But he himself is not armed? He's the leader, but he lets the other two robbers have guns, but he doesn't have a gun. Why? Because he prefers to kill with his hands? Let's suppose they found 100,000 euros, how does the leader know that the other two robbers aren't going to turn a gun on him so they can split the score between the two of them 50/50 and leave him out of the loop?
Suffocation would take several minutes. I can't remember what LE/MSM reports were saying. Was it 1-2 minutes to lose consciousness, then 7-8 minutes to suffocate to death? That's seems like a very long time for a robber to spend killing someone. Seems very inefficient since the gang is now armed with guns.
If they didn't shoot the guns because they were worried about the noise, then how do you explain pointing a gun at B to intimidate him? I mean how would they know for sure that B wouldn't try to save C and risk getting shot to do so (with the gunshot, which could wake up the neighbors, bringing the police, etc.)?
JMO