Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #20

[snowpea666]

Some guests would assume, that if the shutter was down, it was totally secure. Therefore they would not check whether the window was latched or not. And unlatched=burglarizable. This was true for example in another flat of this group of people where at least one window was not latched.

GM from statement, it may help clarify ?? He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he relates that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, because, without a light being on in the lounge or the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced. Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door..... So am I correct nothing was locked ?

 

[snowpea666]

Yes I see what you mean, but IMO that pic/vid might be created either during (at the crime location), or after (at a later location)

Yes exactly, but if she was killed on the vid/pic , the crime location being, the apartment? a later location ???? so if LE can't say what day she died, that may mean its not the apartment as most likely they would see if it was the apartment in the footage? and hence know it was the 3rd she died on, sooooo confusing

 

[redplanet]

GM from statement, it may help clarify ?? He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he relates that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, because, without a light being on in the lounge or the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced. Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door..... So am I correct nothing was locked ?

"window closed but he does not know whether it was locked"
If it's not then a thief can open shutter and window with ease and enter swiftly and that IMO is how the intruder entered.

 

[Officer Dibble]

Or could have opened it on entering the apartment to give an alternative escape route in case needed, or to disguise the fact that they were still in the apartment. Even to air the place of any odours.
I also wonder if there was a sort of network of petty criminal

We already know he is very smelly. Maybe to rid his own smell? JMO

 

[redplanet]

Yes exactly, but if she was killed on the vid/pic , the crime location being, the apartment? a later location ???? so if LE can't say what day she died, that may mean its not the apartment as most likely they would see if it was the apartment in the footage? and hence know it was the 3rd she died on, sooooo confusing

Yes agreed.

 

[Okapi]

The reasoning by dlk79 that CB killed MBM in situ (accidentally or otherwise) is quite persuasive. It links in with the dog alerts and, as dlk says, the words used by HWC ("murdered" but never "abducted") are very telling.


Regarding the podcast linked by Enjy, where HCW says they know MBM was murdered but don't know what day ...


And thinking back to my post in Thread 19, that "someone who is speaking to LE about CB is aware of something which was taken or done in the apartment" ..


I'm wondering if this friend of CB (HB?) knows that CB killed MBM in the apartment, before removing the body.


There may be an image etc taken afterwards at a different location, as Dlk suggests. Probably as a trophy. Likely featuring a disguised CB.


So, LE may have an allegation that MBM died at the apartment, and an image/vision or even a description of an image in which the child is apparently deceased. This vision or allegation could indicate that any trophy was acquired within hours of the child's disappearance.


It would suggest LE have evidence of her death but not of a crime scene or exact time of death and as dlk79 says, not technically of a kidnapping.


Perhaps it is a moot point as to whether she was actually abused in that timeframe. CB may have been in her bed restraining and silencing her and she may have suffocated. It is truly awful to contemplate if there is any lesser evil in how that poor little girl likely died.


Just my own thoughts.

 

[Newthoughts]

I think that's a bit of a misleading representation of the argument that is being made. I don't think anyone is suggesting he got interrupted while simply burgling, I certainly haven't. The suggestion was that whatever happened may have been opportunist, as opposed him going into the apartment with the predetermined intention of kidnap. The possibility raised about being disturbed and trying to silence MM applied to the logic that CB possibly tried to abuse her in the apartment.

Indeed there is, and I'm not discounting it. I was just interested why you cited those 2 acts as your reasoning for a planned abduction when neither involved an abduction. As I said, abusing MM within the apartment would have been more in keeping with the MO of those crimes along with other acts he has been associated with.

Sorry - think it does sound like I've misrepresented your posts. It was completely unintentional.

Both of us are just postulating - IMO both ideas make sense if the same motive is considered

If you're correct the cadaver dogs evidence becomes more significant but only if it happened very early on in the evening and she remained there for quite some time? Given the time needed for oudour to appear. Which would tie in with you postulation he broke in to abuse in situ and would suggest he did so for some time. There was no evidence left for the rape for example.

What are your opinions on the cadaver dogs?

All just opinions.

 

[Tekno]

I am starting to think that much can be read from the subtext of Mr Wolters’ words. I.e. he would confirm certain questions and questions that may hold some truth, he says he cannot comment on. In one of his interviews he said that they don’t have any physical evidence such as Madeleine’s pajamas. I have also wondered why he would bring that up. This makes me think they may have some sort of photographic evidence where her pajamas feature. Therefore his insistence that it is Madeleine. Only my opinion.

 

[mrjitty]

From what I've understood everything about the case has been written by GA in his book ( at least his view) and how he came to that conclusion. I think the idea of an accident was based on the dogs and no other evidence for external people being in the apartment.

We don't have to place any trust in GA because we have the Lisbon trial.

The entire thrust, all the way up to the top court of the land, was whether the book represented a reasonably accurate account of the investigation as it stood at the time GA was transferred to another department. Evidence at trial led the Court to hold that it was indeed a fair account.

For this reason, I base my understanding of the original PJ investigation on the public results of that trial.

 

[mrjitty]

As far as I know his book wasn't released before the "processo" files were made public and so any ethical concerns are excluded.

.....

GA isn't responsible for his colleague's acts or opinions.

Snipped by me for focus ....

I think there is a tendency to see the investigation as a monolith based on the work of one man.

But actually we know

1. The original investigation very much focussed on an abductor, and led to the identification of RM as prime suspect

2. The investigation as it subsequently developed was a collaboration involving other key officers like the UK's Mark Harrison.

3. The 2nd investigation, post GA, appeared to have the political goal of archiving, without a murder on the books, so that the case could simply be shelved. A classic missing persons allows murder police to sit on their hands without an unsolved murder on their stats

For these kind of reasons, an overfocus on GA is not very helpful. For instance, the Met have been investigation this case for years and still have it as missing persons - obviously that is grist for FF's mill.

Ditto, FF can rely on the "processo" files and evidence from Lisbon. In that regard, JT iding RM as the abductor, is a potential joker for the defence - just one example.

This is why I feel HCW needs a piece of evidence that renders the 5A saga irrelevant.

 

[Chiatos]

Not impossible, but you're counting on an open window when you lift shutters 2-3cm. Forensically speaking there's no evidence the window was open because no officer saw it open when arrived. Also, investigators found no evidence window and shutters were forced.

There's no evidence because they didn't investigate the window(s). Officer Nelson Pacheco arrived at the scene and mentioned nothing about the windows in his initial statement (May 2007):
P.J. POLICE FILES: NELSON FILIPE PACHECO DA COSTA G.N.R

In his second statement in October 2007 he does mention the windows:
When questioned about the bedroom windows, he only remembers that blinds of the window of the girl’s bedroom were not totally closed. He does not remember about the existence of curtains or whether the window itself was closed.
P.J. POLICE FILES: NELSON FILIPE PACHECO DA COSTA G.N.R

Colleague Jose Roque's (who was with Nelson Pacheco) initial statement in May 2007 didn't contain anything about the windows
P.J. POLICE FILES: JOSE MARIA BATISA ROQUE STATEMENT
In Jose Roque statement of October 2007, however, the windows are mentioned:
When questioned about the windows in the bedroom, he only remembers that the window in the girl's bedroom was closed with the blind raised up the space of the width of a hand. He does not remember the existence of curtains. The father indicated, through the translator, alleging that when the disappearance was discovered, the windows and blinds were open.
P.J. POLICE FILES: JOSE MARIA BATISA ROQUE STATEMENT

The perpetrator could have entered and/or exited through:
- the unlocked sliding doors
- the unlocked wooden front door (by using a key to enter and no need for a key to exit)
- through the window

 

[Chiatos]

Jeez - you've really taken my post seriously haven't you

Yeah ...

 

[Lilly b]

Witness Statement of Alexander James CAMERON 2008.04.15
This explains blood in the rental car.
It's GM brother in law
Not that we was discussing it, but it's something I didn't know

 

[mrjitty]

I will alter my statement to clarify what I meant.

It is an incontrovertible fact that MM disappeared that night. LE believe she was taken rather than leaving of her own volition. If they are correct - all evidence points to somebody taking her - because she is no longer there. Regardless of motive.

So I'm pointing out that all discussions about the difficulties of taking her and likelihoods of being stopped are moot because it has happened.

I'll answer at a general level.

I agree abduction will have to be proved by inference, as we lack any direct evidence of an abductor.

But that is a heavy lift, both in terms of mode, and identity. You really need something that makes abduction irrelevant to the case. i.e a murder charge based on events later on.

 

[mrjitty]

Yikes, concurring with GA and FF's theory! What a terrifying thought!

More seriously though, when the evidence goes in a certain direction, unusual possibilities become more likely.

So the blood dog gave positive indications. and then degraded forensics were located from that site. So you can make a strong argument for blood.

So that would in fact support your theory - however unlikely on the face of it.

 

[Dlk79]

Yes exactly, but if she was killed on the vid/pic , the crime location being, the apartment? a later location ???? so if LE can't say what day she died, that may mean its not the apartment as most likely they would see if it was the apartment in the footage? and hence know it was the 3rd she died on, sooooo confusing

Mr Wolters answer is very confusing. Had to listen to it a couple of times to understand what he meant. He is asked a question about how certain they are CB was in PDL on the 3rd. If he was being completely clear, I think he would have just said they have nothing to physically locate him there other than the phone call. But what he is getting at, is that they have seperate evidence that CB killed MM (for example, a photo perhaps), but this evidence does not give an indication of the date it happened i.e. they cannot say with any certainty it was taken on the 3rd. However, since they do have that evidence he killed her, it is reasonable to assume that he was in PDL on the 3rd to have taken her in the first place.

It's a very round about way to answer the question, but that was my understanding of what he meant. It doesn’t rule out a death in the apartment scenario, if the evidence is a photo, it could have been taken elsewhere, when she was already dead.

 

[Newthoughts]

More seriously though, when the evidence goes in a certain direction, unusual possibilities become more likely.

So the blood dog gave positive indications. and then degraded forensics were located from that site. So you can make a strong argument for blood.

So that would in fact support your theory - however unlikely on the face of it.

If there was blood it was not immediately obvious? Does that suggest whoever was there cleaned it up to reasonable degree?

I believe the crime scene was contaminated from the start but from a legal point of view how good was the subsequent forensic search of the site? After the blood dog search was luminol used at all? Were any samples retrieved?

 

[Dlk79]

Sorry - think it does sound like I've misrepresented your posts. It was completely unintentional.

Both of us are just postulating - IMO both ideas make sense if the same motive is considered

If you're correct the cadaver dogs evidence becomes more significant but only if it happened very early on in the evening and she remained there for quite some time? Given the time needed for oudour to appear. Which would tie in with you postulation he broke in to abuse in situ and would suggest he did so for some time. There was no evidence left for the rape for example.

What are your opinions on the cadaver dogs?

All just opinions.

The dog alerts have always been a somewhat confusing aspect of the evidence. It is possible they were simply wrong. I didn't think my theory of a death in the apartment would explain the dog alerts either since it was my understanding that corpse odour doesn't kick in for about 2 hours. However, I have just come across this article where it indicates that the scent could start from as little as 15 minutes. On that basis, the theory of CB killing MM in 5A might be compatible with the dog alerts.

"Physiologic changes begin immediately, and within the first two hours after death onset of lividity, chemical changes in the blood, relaxation of muscle tissue, and other changes have been documented. In fact, in some cases, lividity can be seen as soon as 15 minutes post-mortem."
cadaver_odour [Just five hours in May].

It says in this test scenario, the earliest they were able to get a dog to detect a cadaver scent was 1 hour 25 minutes after death. However, the shortest length test sample they used was 70 minutes after death. Given they did not trial anything under this, and the test scenario only used 5 dogs, it's possible I suppose that a good dog might be able to alert to an even shorter post-mortem interval.

Not totally convinced by this, but it does allow for the possibility. The other thing to note, is that the cadaver dog was also trained to alert to blood. So it is no indicator necessarily that the dog was picking up the scent of death. People bleed all the time, so it could just be that he and the blood dog were just picking up something completely unrelated to MM.

 

[Dlk79]

"Knowledge of the crime only the suspect could know."

Had a thought on this. I think most of us have assumed this knowledge involves some detail that is not currently in the public domain, but that's not necessarily the case.

If we assume this "knowledge" comes from something CB confessed to HB, that would have been in 2008. It was supposedly at a festival which I believe was in the July of that year. The PJ files which we are so familiar with now hadn't been made public at that point, most were realeased in August 2008 I believe. So if CB mentioned something that wasn't common knowledge at that point in time, that could I suppose be reasonably described as something only the perpetrator could know. Ok, technically the police would have also known about it too, but I could understand why HCW might make that assertion given the likelihood CB could have obtained such information from them.

Taking the example of CB possibly describing something that happened during GM or MO's checks, much of the details behind those checks had not been reported in the Press. Things like GM using the toilet or MO stopping to look at the books on the shelf that are mentioned in their statements were probably not common knowledge back then.

Not that it makes a lot of difference. Just pointing out that this "knowledge of the crime" might be something we do now know about, but that wasn't known back when CB recounted it.

 

[Lilly b]

If there was blood it was not immediately obvious? Does that suggest whoever was there cleaned it up to reasonable degree?

I believe the crime scene was contaminated from the start but from a legal point of view how good was the subsequent forensic search of the site? After the blood dog search was luminol used at all? Were any samples retrieved?

What if there was traces of blood from previous occupiers, when rooms are cleaned between different people staying there, yes they change bedding mop up etc etc and they don't always do it that thoroughly and
, they don't replace wardrobes or sofas. The cleaner may of cut themselves, don't suppose dna was taken from all that worked at or for the OC, now that could still be done, we have the list for everyone.

I don't think it makes any difference wether it was the doors or windows that was used at entry and exit point, the case won't be solved by that fact.
Also there is nothing to say the bed covers were all messed up, as though something happened on the bed, like any struggle or messing about if you know what I mean

As I mentioned in my prev post about the hire car, the blood was from food.