Are 'Murder by Stranger' victims ever removed from the scene of the crime?

[Cariad]

I don't follow your logic here.   Are you saying that if something hasn't happened thus far - then it never can happen?         There must have been a time in the case of the person who assaulted children in their beds in Portugal that he had never assaulted a 7 year old.   But then he did.

There has to be a first time for everything.

No, absolutely not. Despite the saying that there's nothing new under the sun, I am not claiming that something can not happen just because it hasn't either before or since (to our combined knowledge anyway).

I do wonder why people think that it's a possibility. A few people have proposed it as an alternative to Andy Redwood basing his recent comments on the dog alerts.

At first it I thought I was just unaware of these other cases. I asked on other threads a couple of time, but got no reply so I went to Google. I couldn't find anything there either. It was quite difficult to know what to Google though, so again, I thought I might've been missing something.

To me it seems like one of the most unlikely scenarios. As far as I am aware, someone unknown to the victim has never entered the victims property, caused a death, then taken the body with them.

Bear in mind that in this case there was only a 50 (ish) minute window, broken up by a check at 9:30 which was about 20 minutes in to that window, during which everything was quiet and there was no signs of either a murder or a break in.

There are many reasons why one would conceal the body of a known victim. That happens all the time. There are also cases of children being removed from their homes alive by strangers then coming to harm, as has been mentioned further up the thread, though thankfully that is rare.

But why would someone remove the body of an unknown victim from their own property?

[Cariad]

Previous Article Published 8/27/12 →
Isabella Tennant, 5, was allegedly murdered by a 16-year-old family friend,  John Freeman, in her grandmothers home.
An upstate teen killed a 5-year-old girl he was babysitting “with his bare  hands” and, with the help of a friend, bagged her body and dumped it in an alleyway garbage can, police said.
Little Isabella Tennant’s slain body was found in at the bottom of a trash  can near downtown Niagara Falls at around 9 a.m. on Monday, a few hours after her family reported her missing, authorities said.

A five-year-old girl who disappeared from her grandmother‘s house was found dead in a garbage can down a NY alley yesterday. (Aug. 27th, 2012) A 16-year-old boy, described as a ‘trusted family friend’, was named as a person of interest in the death of Isabella Sarah Tennant, according to police. The girl was last seen at midnight at her grandmother’s home on 6th Street in the City of Niagara Falls, New York on Sunday night. Her body was found, around 12 hours later, stuffed into a garbage bag and dumped two streets away between 3rd and 4th. The girl’s grandmother was known for helping troubled children and the 16-year-old regularly came to the house, according to Wgrz.com.
Police were tipped off to the location of the child’s body by another 16-year-old.
No weapon was found at the scene but there were indications of trauma. The 16-year-old was expected to be charged with second-degree murder, according to sources.
Police were releasing no further information at present. 
A neighbor who was also at the grandmother’s house and was one of the last people to see five-year-old Isabella had also been spoken to by police as a person of interest.
The girl who had blue eyes and blonde hair was last seen wearing pink pyjamas with black stars.
Neighbors had combed the area late into the night and police brought in search dogs.
The girl was being cared for by her grandmother while her mother, of Cheektowaga, worked at Player’s nightclub in Niagara Falls.

SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2194378/Missing-year-old-girl-dead-alley-teenage-boy-arrested-Niagara-Falls-New-York.html

Again, the victim was known to the perpetrator.  He was know to have been in the property with the child at the time of the crime so had every reason to remove and hide the body. He needed to distance himself from the crime. But what if a stranger had broken in and caused the death of the child, either as an accident or murder? Why would they take the body with them?

[Mr Gray]

Again, the victim was known to the perpetrator.  He was know to have been in the property with the child at the time of the crime so had every reason to remove and hide the body. He needed to distance himself from the crime. But what if a stranger had broken in and caused the death of the child, either as an accident or murder? Why would they take the body with them?

There's avery simple answer but you won't want to accept it as you believe the parents are involved...the body is removed to remove any forensic evidence

[Cariad]

There's avery simple answer but you won't want to accept it as you believe the parents are involved...the body is removed to remove any forensic evidence

That is the simple answer. However, it actually causes more questions to be asked. Not least of which is, how was there time to clean up the scene of the crime, but not to clean up the victim? If you consider the risks involved in removing the body, surely it would've been safer to leave her?

As you are well aware davel, I have never claimed to know what happened to Madeline Mccann. I have never claimed that it was her parents 'what dunnit'. The most I have ever expressed about the parents is that they are 'iffy' and there childcare arrangements were shockingly below par.

Anyway, I don't want this thread derailed with questions of guilt or innocence of Madeleine's parents. There are hundreds of other threads for that.

[stephen25000]

I'm not blaming you, you have every right to answer a question directed at you.

It's probable that my own bias is affecting how I see this. To me it would seem like a much greater risk to remove a body that to leave it in situ if there's nothing to connect you to it.

I dunno. If it was for forensic reasons, why isn't it common practice? Why no sign of a struggle? Why no forensics in the property? Even in a state of panic, surely the first response would be to run? Not pause to grab a body that you then have to dispose of?

Good questions Cariad.

I await to see logical answers.

[Carana]

That is the simple answer. However, it actually causes more questions to be asked. Not least of which is, how was there time to clean up the scene of the crime, but not to clean up the victim? If you consider the risks involved in removing the body, surely it would've been safer to leave her?

As you are well aware davel, I have never claimed to know what happened to Madeline Mccann. I have never claimed that it was her parents 'what dunnit'. The most I have ever expressed about the parents is that they are 'iffy' and there childcare arrangements were shockingly below par.

Anyway, I don't want this thread derailed with questions of guilt or innocence of Madeleine's parents. There are hundreds of other threads for that.

I don't see why it would have been safer to leave her. Someone who'd committed other crimes, or possibly one who lived or worked nearby would have risked being in the spotlight.

A quick Google hasn't thrown up any cases yet. Some of the cases of murdered children don't specify where the child was taken from, nor who was responsible, so it's hard to tell. On the other hand, offhand, I can't think of any cases of children murdered at home by a stranger and the body left behind either (except JonBenet if she was indeed killed by a stranger).

The fact that it may well be rare and the lack of any concrete evidence that she did come to any serious harm in the apartment leaves a small hope that she could still be alive somewhere (a caveat being that the forensics were far from thorough). Or if she did come to grief, that it happened elsewhere.

[stephen25000]

I don't see why it would have been safer to leave her. Someone who'd committed other crimes, or possibly one who lived or worked nearby would have risked being in the spotlight.

A quick Google hasn't thrown up any cases yet. Some of the cases of murdered children don't specify where the child was taken from, nor who was responsible, so it's hard to tell. On the other hand, offhand, I can't think of any cases of children murdered at home by a stranger and the body left behind either (except JonBenet if she was indeed killed by a stranger).

The fact that it may well be rare and the lack of any concrete evidence that she did come to any serious harm in the apartment leaves a small hope that she could still be alive somewhere (a caveat being that the forensics were far from thorough). Or if she did come to grief, that it happened elsewhere.

That is assuming a third party removed Madeleine from the apartment.

[Cariad]

I don't see why it would have been safer to leave her. Someone who'd committed other crimes, or possibly one who lived or worked nearby would have risked being in the spotlight.

A quick Google hasn't thrown up any cases yet. Some of the cases of murdered children don't specify where the child was taken from, nor who was responsible, so it's hard to tell. On the other hand, offhand, I can't think of any cases of children murdered at home by a stranger and the body left behind either (except JonBenet if she was indeed killed by a stranger).

The fact that it may well be rare and the lack of any concrete evidence that she did come to any serious harm in the apartment leaves a small hope that she could still be alive somewhere (a caveat being that the forensics were far from thorough). Or if she did come to grief, that it happened elsewhere.

That's an excellent point. I can't either. Maybe we can add that in to the question?

Can anyone think of a case in which a stranger has entered a property, killed a child and left them?

Just to be clear though, the original question was not just about children. Any case in which a stranger killed/caused the death of another person in their own property, regardless of age or gender, then removed the body would do.

[Carana]

I'm not blaming you, you have every right to answer a question directed at you.

It's probable that my own bias is affecting how I see this. To me it would seem like a much greater risk to remove a body that to leave it in situ if there's nothing to connect you to it.

I dunno. If it was for forensic reasons, why isn't it common practice? Why no sign of a struggle? Why no forensics in the property? Even in a state of panic, surely the first response would be to run? Not pause to grab a body that you then have to dispose of?

I commented before seeing this post.

You're thinking of it from the angle that she did die there at the hands of a stranger? I still think she could have been taken out alive, but I'll try to set that aside.

Common practice: I haven't found much information to figure out what common practice might be in such cases.

No signs of a struggle:
- she might not have been in bed at the time.
- a big hand on a little face or even a big paw around her throat could have killed her, even accidentally.

No connection: as I'd said before, perhaps someone already known to the police or someone in the vicinity with no alibi would be more likely (in theory) to be considered a suspect.

Panic and run:
- the guy intercepted in children's bedrooms seemed calm. I'd have thought that that guy would have panicked and run, but seemingly not.

- Taking a body: forensic reasons? It would be easier to grab a child's body and pretend it was asleep than an adult's one.

[Carana]

Not directly relevant as it turns out that the killer knew the child and it's not clear if he thought he'd killed her before taking her from her bedroom or not. He'd strangled her, but she actually died of drowning after being dumped in a storm drain, poor child. The killer seemingly didn't remember much of what had happened, even less why he did it.

Trinity's killer gets life
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/trinitys-killer-gets-life-20120802-23hg3.html

[Benice]

I commented before seeing this post.

You're thinking of it from the angle that she did die there at the hands of a stranger? I still think she could have been taken out alive, but I'll try to set that aside.

Common practice: I haven't found much information to figure out what common practice might be in such cases.

No signs of a struggle:
- she might not have been in bed at the time.
- a big hand on a little face or even a big paw around her throat could have killed her, even accidentally.

No connection: as I'd said before, perhaps someone already known to the police or someone in the vicinity with no alibi would be more likely (in theory) to be considered a suspect.

Panic and run:
- the guy intercepted in children's bedrooms seemed calm. I'd have thought that that guy would have panicked and run, but seemingly not.

- Taking a body: forensic reasons? It would be easier to grab a child's body and pretend it was asleep than an adult's one.

This is in line with my own thinking Carana.   Also a serial abuser who had successfully 'got away' completely  with numerous similar crimes against children in the past may be feeling quite 'confident' that this would continue. 

Who knows what goes through the mind of such a vile monster, but it would appear that if he did decide to take the risk of removing her (maybe even thinking she was only unconscious)  then it worked - as 7 years later he is still on the loose.

Whether this man is the perpetrator or not - he needs to be found.




 

[sadie]

If the child being carried was dead, I keep coming back to the question of  ' Why carry her thru the streets of PdL openly '  ?

There were bags in the apartment.  If dead why not bundle her in one of them ?  Or even wrap her in his jacket out of sight?


The whole scenario of carrying a dead child openly thru the streets, just doesn't make sense


I believe that both Tannermans child and Smithmans child was alive.  Maybe the same child, maybe not.

[colombosstogey]

I'm not blaming you, you have every right to answer a question directed at you.

It's probable that my own bias is affecting how I see this. To me it would seem like a much greater risk to remove a body that to leave it in situ if there's nothing to connect you to it.

I dunno. If it was for forensic reasons, why isn't it common practice? Why no sign of a struggle? Why no forensics in the property? Even in a state of panic, surely the first response would be to run? Not pause to grab a body that you then have to dispose of?

Yes why would a STRANGER abduct a corpse. Long time ago I did google and google this and found no instances with STRANGER from home.

Why would someone do this.

DNA is probably the only reason.

However, if there was no DNA or fingerprints found in the apartment (because even though there were 3 young children living in there, and friends visiting the place was pristine) then the assumption is the stranger who had for some reason killed the child would have been wearing gloves and protective clothing. 

Also friends fingerprints would be expected in the apartment and more than likely dismissed.

That leads to sexual DNA being the only other reason for taking the child away. IF the child was found dead and sexually abused DNA would be taken, and strangers OR someone known to the family would be checked for DNA....so yes a stranger or not would then need to take the childs body away.....

[Wonderfulspam]

Yes why would a STRANGER abduct a corpse. Long time ago I did google and google this and found no instances with STRANGER from home.

Why would someone do this.

DNA is probably the only reason.

However, if there was no DNA or fingerprints found in the apartment (because even though there were 3 young children living in there, and friends visiting the place was pristine) then the assumption is the stranger who had for some reason killed the child would have been wearing gloves and protective clothing. 

Also friends fingerprints would be expected in the apartment and more than likely dismissed.

That leads to sexual DNA being the only other reason for taking the child away. IF the child was found dead and sexually abused DNA would be taken, and strangers OR someone known to the family would be checked for DNA....so yes a stranger or not would then need to take the childs body away.....

So, the burglar entered 5a with a key, sexually assualts and murders Maddie, opens the window to remove his tell tale body odour, changes Maddies jammies from short sleeved eeyores to a long sleeved white pair before leaving the front door, closing it behind him & making his getaway on foot past the smith family.

It all makes perfect sense to me.

[colombosstogey]

So, the burglar entered 5a with a key, sexually assualts and murders Maddie, opens the window to remove his tell tale body odour, changes Maddies jammies from short sleeved eeyores to a long sleeved white pair before leaving the front door, closing it behind him & making his getaway on foot past the smith family.

It all makes perfect sense to me.

Thats not what we are talking about we are asking ANY OTHER CASES IN WHICH A STRANGER HAS ABDUCTED A CORPSE?

I am merely pointing out one of the reasons why one might want to do this, NOT that it happened.