Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #21

[Newthoughts]

Well of course the time she was last seen and the time she was discovered missing are generally accepted facts, but that doesn't by association rule out the abuse in situ theory any more than it confirms a planned and successful abduction of a live child.

Doesn't rule out anything at all - not everything is about promoting one theory over another. It's the closest we get to an accurate timeline and the closest we get to clear fixed window of just under an hour when CB cannot be miles or more than 60 minutes away from the appt. If that is what his lawyer may try to use as a defence.

The door could refine that timeline more clearly but none of the statements on it are hugely clear. They are more of the nature of seemed which is little use and unlikely to stand up to harsh scrutiny.

 

[Newthoughts]

If you were laying on your bed at night and someone outside opened the shutter and window and started climbing in, what would you do?

A child I think would startle and cry. If they woke up.

 

[redplanet]

Yes but with huge reservations. Blood - could be anything. People have nose bleeds, paper cuts etc. Small children are always falling down.

Cadaver scent takes time to develop and Eddie's also alerted to the McCanns car. KM was a GP - very likely to signed death certs for people who had been dead for a while. Especially if she attended care home residents

Concerning "takes time to develop" the scientific literature IMO contains absolutely no studies of detectability by dogs of scent samples obtained at post mortem intervals in the order of 5 to 10 minutes. Therefore it may be possible.

 

[redplanet]

Yes but with huge reservations. Blood - could be anything. People have nose bleeds, paper cuts etc. Small children are always falling down.

Cadaver scent takes time to develop and Eddie's also alerted to the McCanns car. KM was a GP - very likely to signed death certs for people who had been dead for a while. Especially if she attended care home residents

There IMO may be a far stronger way to explain all the clothing alerts as 100% caused by the actions of an intruder.

 

[redplanet]

Or should you say, what would a child do? I personally would wake my other half up, if he wasn't awake already

Yes sorry I mean when you were about 4 yrs old what would you have done?

 

[redplanet]

A child I think would startle and cry. If they woke up.

Well the metal shutters are rather loud so yes please assume that the noise wakes the nearly-4yr-old you up.

 

[Newthoughts]

Well the metal shutters are rather loud so yes please assume that the noise wakes the nearly-4yr-old you up.

I think mine would be startled and, remembering mine at that age, it could go two ways. They could he upset and start to cry. Or - as nearly 4 is still very young and trusting - they could just ask lots of questions and be easily reassured that mum and dad are near or have sent him. Stranger danger lessons for little ones deal with people in parks and cars - don't think they cover people in bedrooms.

I wouldn't necessarily assume she'd be scared initially. She was apparently confident

 

[Anxala]

If you were laying on your bed at night and someone outside opened the shutter and window and started climbing in, what would you do?

But there's no evidence to suggest that happened. None at all. And there never has been.

 

[Anxala]

As you know, i doubt the photo idea, which would be an absolute bombshell. I suspect rather, they found other evidence (e.g. messages) which confirm or corroborate elements of his confession. But I believe they lack any physical evidence of their theory.

^ Yes, on balance (I suggested possible 'footage' earlier), I agree with that for all the objective reasoning that would point to it being unlikely - not least a moral obligation on their part to pass something so crucial on to the McCanns/the Met. Which hasn't happened.

So that leaves 'conversations' (online/txts) as the likely basis of their conviction that CB's the one. Hmm.

 

[peanutJelly]

Yes but with huge reservations. Blood - could be anything. People have nose bleeds, paper cuts etc. Small children are always falling down.

Cadaver scent takes time to develop and Eddie's also alerted to the McCanns car. KM was a GP - very likely to signed death certs for people who had been dead for a while. Especially if she attended care home residents

I’ve heard this mentioned before as an explanation, but I’m not sure how long this smell would stay on people and their belongings, all being washed you would assume a few times before the dog searches

 

[peanutJelly]

If you were laying on your bed at night and someone outside opened the shutter and window and started climbing in, what would you do?

Sweet dreams to anyone catching up at night

 

[Lilly b]

I think mine would be startled and, remembering mine at that age, it could go two ways. They could he upset and start to cry. Or - as nearly 4 is still very young and trusting - they could just ask lots of questions and be easily reassured that mum and dad are near or have sent him. Stranger danger lessons for little ones deal with people in parks and cars - don't think they cover people in bedrooms.

I wouldn't necessarily assume she'd be scared initially. She was apparently confident

Totally agree with what you say, naive mind at that age

 

[Anxala]

Yes but with huge reservations. Blood - could be anything. People have nose bleeds, paper cuts etc. Small children are always falling down.

Cadaver scent takes time to develop and Eddie's also alerted to the McCanns car. KM was a GP - very likely to signed death certs for people who had been dead for a while. Especially if she attended care home residents

^ I wonder was that ever pursued? I can't find anything to suggest it was. But yet surely it should have been pursued?

 

[redplanet]

But there's no evidence to suggest that happened. None at all. And there never has been.

...unless one considers the open shutter and open window as described by witness KM?

 

[redplanet]

I think mine would be startled and, remembering mine at that age, it could go two ways. They could he upset and start to cry. Or - as nearly 4 is still very young and trusting - they could just ask lots of questions and be easily reassured that mum and dad are near or have sent him. Stranger danger lessons for little ones deal with people in parks and cars - don't think they cover people in bedrooms.

I wouldn't necessarily assume she'd be scared initially. She was apparently confident

If it was me at almost 4 I believe I would have been out of that room like a rocket.

 

[Dlk79]

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

Ok, but then this is why I think it's unfair of you to say the abuse in situ theory doesn't make sense. If all it takes is blood or signs of a struggle to suddenly convince you the theory sounds plausible, then it equally has to make sense without those signs too. Because if CB killed MM in that apartment, it almost certainly wouldn't have involved any violent trauma, it would have most likely been a suffocation or strangulation, possibly as a result of trying to silence her. That's not going to leave any trace for the police find! MM isn't big enough to put up any fight that would leave signs of a struggle (unless she somehow managed to scram him, deep enough to drawing blood which then transferred onto something). And it is absolutely impossible to determine whether a suffocation/strangulation has occured in a given location without the body.

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.

I disagree. I'd argue my theory is perfectly in keeping with the sexual crimes against strangers that he has been know to commit. Abuse in situ and voyeurist sexual acts against children. Whereas your theory of abduction involves CB doing something that there is no evidence he has ever done before or since.

Plus I think I'm more cynical about MOs statement

I'm not especially convinced by the reliability of MO's statement either, but don't see how his input has anything to do with reinforcing one theory over the other? The only thing that is really of note in his statement IMO concerns the door being further open again. And even then, it's not really that important given KM confirms it was open when she entered at 10pm.

 

[Ardoch]

Sorry to be a pain and not scrolling back, but why is there so many posts re the positioning of the door? I may have missed something and if so, my apologies, but is it that relevant in the run of things?

 

[redplanet]

KM: "I entered the sitting room via the patio doors ....... and stood there listening for a few seconds. All was silent. Then I noticed that the door to the children's bedroom was open quite wide ....... I walked over and gently began to pull it to. Suddenly it slammed shut as if caught by a draught"

 

[Ardoch]

KM: "I entered the sitting room via the patio doors ....... and stood there listening for a few seconds. All was silent. Then I noticed that the door to the children's bedroom was open quite wide ....... I walked over and gently began to pull it to. Suddenly it slammed shut as if caught by a draught"

Thank you. And the window was opened?

 

[Dlk79]

Sorry to be a pain and not scrolling back, but why is there so many posts re the positioning of the door? I may have missed something and if so, my apologies, but is it that relevant in the run of things?

The McCanns said they pulled MM's bedroom door almost closed before they left for dinner. When GM checks around 9 o 'clock he says that door is now half open and so he pulls it almost closed again. Then when MO does his check around 9.30, the door is said to be half open again. He leaves it as it is (since he doesn't know whether that is how it is meant to be) and when KM enters around 10, she also confirms the door is half open.

The significance is how the door moved prior to GM's check and then moved again after it. One of the theories concerns whether CB was therefore already in the apartment during GM's check and it was him who opened the door up on both occasions. Another theory is whether MM could have opened the door on one or both occasions, perhaps to look for her parents or go to the toilet.