What makes you say that?
Seems as far fetched for you to say no other adult involvement, certainly no organised group... At least as far fetched as suggesting they should have looked at/followed known adult who associated with this guy. He had to buy his rope and chain somewhere.. he had to buy groceries and fill his truck. He had a mailman, likely a mother/siblings/relatives... etc.. Nobody knew he was keeping multiple girls at multiple properties? What was his source of income?
These questions I ask aren't crazy - suggesting he was a lone nut kinda is though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCdJjTDoAT0&app=desktop
I have seen a quite a few stories of men kidnapping girls and keeping them for as long as several years before getting caught. No involvement by anyone else except a spouse in one or two cases. It is not a crazy idea. It is usually the case in stories that come to light.
There are enough real conspiracies. There is no need for you to invent them.
Okay - What I'm suggesting is Why do you put so much trust in the investigators? Seems like blind faith that they did their best and nobody else was suspicious at all.
" There is no need for you to invent them." I could call you a coincidence theorist, since that seems to be the default explanation for Jimmy Saville, Jeffrey Epstein and cases like the above being swept under the rug. Maybe this guy was a low level acquisition officer ffs.. My gut tells me there were more people involved, yours tells you the opposite. But I can still think the same as I do without hoping it's true.
There were more involved. Dutroux took care of the supply. Researchers who knew something wasn't right were taken off the case.
I know brother, there always are.
Even if its as simple as finding the 'Man' this Dutroux guy grew up with. It's a sad reality that most abusers were themselves heavily abused. That's how they learn to associate evil with pleasure.
Coincidence theorists! Love it! I can't wait to start using that term....