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

[sadie]

NOBODY would parade a dead child thru the streets in full view.  A living child has to breath so could not be put in a bag.

Both Tannerman and Smithman were carrying a living child

[Cariad]

NOBODY would parade a dead child thru the streets in full view.  A living child has to breath so could not be put in a bag.

Both Tannerman and Smithman were carrying a living child

Andy Redwood has stated that Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment. One of the suggestions is that someone broke in and caused her death, either intentionally or accidentally.

We're just exploring the likelihood of that  and whether it has happened before to our knowledge.

[Brietta]

Andy Redwood has stated that Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment. One of the suggestions is that someone broke in and caused her death, either intentionally or accidentally.

We're just exploring the likelihood of that  and whether it has happened before to our knowledge.

Apart from leaving incriminating DNA or evidence of sedation which could lead back to the perpetrator, the only reason for removing a corpse I can think of would be that it was not realised that death had occurred. 

But what normal person could determine what goes through the mind of an individual who would enter a home to harm a child?   

Should an abduction victim’s body be later recovered I would imagine it would be impossible to determine where death had occurred unless there was some indicator present ruling out death in the home, for example if water were found in the lungs.
 
Also, if no trace of the victim is found it is impossible to state with any degree of certainty that a death has taken place either in the home or elsewhere, and it should be presumed the victim may still be alive. 

[jassi]

Apart from leaving incriminating DNA or evidence of sedation which could lead back to the perpetrator, the only reason for removing a corpse I can think of would be that it was not realised that death had occurred. 

But what normal person could determine what goes through the mind of an individual who would enter a home to harm a child?   

Should an abduction victim’s body be later recovered I would imagine it would be impossible to determine where death had occurred unless there was some indicator present ruling out death in the home, for example if water were found in the lungs.
 
Also, if no trace of the victim is found it is impossible to state with any degree of certainty that a death has taken place either in the home or elsewhere, and it should be presumed the victim may still be alive.

You might think so, but I believe there have been a number of cases where someone has bee convicted of murder without a body ever being found,

[Brietta]

You might think so, but I believe there have been a number of cases where someone has bee convicted of murder without a body ever being found,

Perhaps I should have qualified by saying, unless there is enough evidence to lead to a prosecution, for example, David Gilroy was convicted of murdering Suzanne Pilley despite no body being found, incidentally indicators to Suzanne’s death were made by VRDs, but this was backed up by sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution and to convince a jury.   
www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-20153898   Cached

[pathfinder73]

Staging is a main reason for removing or moving a dead body. Witnesses say the child was in a deep sleep with her  arms not wrapped around the man but dangling down so that means she could have been dead. Have you seen the man and child that matched Madeleine's description come forward in 7 years to clear themselves? No me neither.

[Cariad]

For the record, I find the idea of a stranger removing the body unlikely in the extreme. I'd go as far as to stay that stranger abduction is more probable than body removal in this case.

If we are to take the statements of the T9 at face value, Madeleine was seen alive at roughly 9:10, then Matt entered the apartment again at 9:30.

 The bed was not disturbed (and sexual assault is surely the most likely cause of DNA contamination?) There were no signs of a struggle, though how much of a struggle an almost 4 year old sleepy child could put up might not leave any signs anyway, but also no other DNA located in the the apartment or fingerprints, or signs of forced entry.

The only logical explanation is that an intruder caused her death, cleaned up the apartment then took the body. That in itself is just not logical.

As for the time constraint, you either have a 20 minute window, a thirty minute window, or an intruder hanging around and hiding during Mattt's check. All in the dark. Not knowing when someone will return.

On top of this highly unlikely scenario, you need to add in 11 separate ERVD alerts which were all either wrong or coincidental.

All of the above proves nothing of course. It is all possible. It just involves suspending your disbelief to such an extent that if it were a film plot, you'd be asking for your money back.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

I often asked this question, Sadie, as you will remember, because to me, walking around the streets with a (living) child - rather than putting her into a car - would indicate a very unprofessional type of abduction.

However in parctise,  carrying a living child through the streets would be just as problematic for an abductor (or whatever we are calling him) than carrying a dead one - maybe even more so. A living child could cry, scream, struggle, or otherwise draw attention to herself.

A dead child would simply lie in a sleeping position.

Who's to say whether or not the child the Smiths saw was alive or dead? Is there anything in their descriptions of the child that would indicate, positively, that she was alive? I don't think so. She was simply assumed to be asleep - an assumption that a snatcher could quite reasonably rely on with regard to his movements being witnessed.

[jassi]

Yes, I imagine that  in the dark a dead child could very well pass for a slumbering one.

[Cariad]

Yes, I imagine that  in the dark a dead child could very well pass for a slumbering one.

Ummm... Really unpleasant question alert......

Would a dead persons eyes stay shut, or would they fall open?

[sadie]

I often asked this question, Sadie, as you will remember, because to me, walking around the streets with a (living) child - rather than putting her into a car - would indicate a very unprofessional type of abduction.

However in parctise,  carrying a living child through the streets would be just as problematic for an abductor (or whatever we are calling him) than carrying a dead one - maybe even more so. A living child could cry, scream, struggle, or otherwise draw attention to herself.

A dead child would simply lie in a sleeping position.

Who's to say whether or not the child the Smiths saw was alive or dead? Is there anything in their descriptions of the child that would indicate, positively, that she was alive? I don't think so. She was simply assumed to be asleep - an assumption that a snatcher could quite reasonably rely on with regard to his movements being witnessed.

Sherlock, I think you read Sadies theory?  If so you will know that I believe a car was coming to pick Tannermann and Madeleine up,
...but that it was frustrated because of two things
1.  Gerry and Jez chatting on the edge of the pavement at the corner of the alleyway.  Where the car had to pass and also within sight, all-be-it at a distance from Gerry, of Tannerman/ bundleman
2.  Jane Tanner actually witnessing the abduction.  No way would the driver go up there and risk a pick up.  If fact I think he wet his pants and buzzed off leaving Tannerman in the lurch.

I dont think it was a choice to carry Madeleine thru the streets; I think it became a necessity

[Carana]

There used to be a thread on here that I found really interesting until it disintegrated into abusive comments. It was an invitation to examine what forensic evidence one would expect in various scenarios and what was actually found. A problem is that the leader of this thread wasn't aware that the forensic analysis actually conducted was not a full analyisis of the entire apartment, that the apartment hadn't been locked down permanently until the arrival of the dogs and that even then the new forensic attempt concentrated on where Keela had alerted.

That said...
- If she had died or had even been murdered in the apartment and the body removed, what forensic evidence could be expected?
- If she was taken out alive, what would one expect in terms of forensic evidence?

In both, what evidence was found and what evidence was not found?

A caveat will still be where the forensic team actually searched.

[pegasus]

There was a very sad case in Bristol England which IMO meets the criteria of a person who is not a relative or associate of the victim kills victim in victim's residence then "abducts" body.
You could argue about the definition of "stranger" for in that case the perp and the victim were previously aware of each others existence but IIRC that was only in the sense that they were neighbours, not associates.

[Cariad]

There used to be a thread on here that I found really interesting until it disintegrated into abusive comments. It was an invitation to examine what forensic evidence one would expect in various scenarios and what was actually found. A problem is that the leader of this thread wasn't aware that the forensic analysis actually conducted was not a full analyisis of the entire apartment, that the apartment hadn't been locked down permanently until the arrival of the dogs and that even then the new forensic attempt concentrated on where Keela had alerted.

That said...
- If she had died or had even been murdered in the apartment and the body removed, what forensic evidence could be expected?
- If she was taken out alive, what would one expect in terms of forensic evidence?

In both, what evidence was found and what evidence was not found?

A caveat will still be where the forensic team actually searched.

That's a very difficult question to answer, Carana. I can speculate, but that's all it would be? I'd be happy to participate in a thread, if you want to start one. 

[Cariad]

There was a very sad case in Bristol England which IMO meets the criteria of a person who is not a relative or associate of the victim kills victim in victim's residence then "abducts" body.
You could argue about the definition of "stranger" for in that case the perp and the victim were previously aware of each others existence but IIRC that was only in the sense that they were neighbours, not associates.

Do you mean Joanna Yates? I don't even remember the name of the guy who murdered who, but I do remember Chris Jefferies, her other neighbour, who was wrongly accused.

I believe they lived in the same house, which was converted into flats. They were not strangers.

Here's an example of a stranger murder at home.

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/burglar-guilty-murder-after-stabbing-6745400

I must say that I had to look quite hard for that. It doesn't seem like a common crime.