Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect #30

kadman

Whittling Time
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
144
Reaction score
383
I always shake my head when a suspect's full name is plainly displayed for ages, then suddenly reduced to some shortened version to protect his identity.
 

Alternative Paradox

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2018
Messages
56
Reaction score
347
I went down a rabbit hole and ended up finding this site:


Could you explain this map to me? Or maybe Alternative paradox? I realize the targets state first seen in 2009 but when I went to Google maps in regards to the targets near Espiche in June 2007, the areas and the things they appear to be targeting looked the same.
It looks like a simple coverage map for each mast/base station (admittedly not my work area, I was primarily on the systems rather than the local network but worked alongside the network guys and moved in 2008 to global systems rollout, so even further from the front line)).

Only the 2G and UMTS (3G) masts are of interest. Not sure of the date of this and so it's accuracy as relevant to 2007 is that's dependent upon any new 'obstructions' having been built that have changed the coverage area of a particular mast (or indeed base stations removed), especially since there are 84 4G masts/base stations shown (which had yet to get to PT in mid ' 09 when I was over there for a few weeks) but I suspect dates from around that time, maybe early 2010.

The good thing to take from this is where a mobile needs to be in order to connect to a base station and how it can be located - it is very much more line-of-sight than may be realised.
 

Davieson

Active Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2022
Messages
118
Reaction score
77
I think it would be interesting to know what else is in the vicinity of where the phone is supposed to have been located. EG coffee shops, bars, shops etc. The image portrayed is of Brueckner, or someone else standing the street for 30 minutes, whereas the person might have been having a drink, or even visiting a friend in a nearby building.
 

Dlk79

Former Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
1,608
Reaction score
9,978
MWT is acting rather foolish IMO. It's all very well moaning about getting stick for making a documentary but he knew beforehand the ripples his statements would cause in such a controversial and highly charged case.

He is out of order to now start waging a campaign against the German authorities though. And he is a hypocrite in saying that by only focussing on CB as the suspect, the 'real killer' is getting away with it. In seeking to publicly undermine an ongoing murder enquiry, he is potentially assisting the real killer in getting away with it! MWT has absolutely zero proof of CB's innocence. All he has is a letter from CB saying he didn't do it. Guess what Mark?..... maybe he's fibbing to you. Maybe his lawyer is using you to promote their story for them.

It is sheer arrogance/gnorance on MWT's part to think he is better placed to judge than the 3 investigating forces, who have dozens of officers with far more reach and access than him, and who have been working this case for years.

He hasn't seen any of the main evidence they have on CB, and on the public evidence he did test out, he did not prove anything. At best he threw some speculative and unsubstantiated doubt around. That's what annoyed me most about the doc, it was the flagrant untruths touted in the build up to the doc. The main example being the claims of a corroborated alibi for CB.

It was intially reported in the press leaks that both CB and this girl claimed they were together the night of the third, stayed overnight in his van and they were both stopped at a roadblock the following morning. Sounds pretty explosive and vindicating for CB...

Then on 'This Morning' to promote his doc, MWT changed it to say the girl can't remember if she was definitely with CB on the 3rd but they were together 'most nights'. MWT said it was CB's claim that they were definitely together on the 3rd though. MWT then goes on to say the traffic stop was in the days after, either the "4th, 5th or 6th" he says.

Then in the actual doc, we find out from MWT that the traffic stop was actually on the 9th!! So why the hell did MWT claim it was the 4th, 5th or 6th in the lead up to the release knowing full well it was on the 9th? To make it sound more like a credible alibi and to sell us CB's 'story' IMO.

Then in the doc, we find out the girl can't actually remember anything about what dates she was with CB at all. Not only that, we find out that CB says in his letter that he isn't actually sure if he was with this woman on the 3rd either. He's just offering it up as somewhere he "might" have been. To cloud it even further, MWT seems to quote two different versions of how they used to meet up. First of all I think his source tells MWT that CB would pick her up in his campervan about 8 or 10pm, they spend all night together in his van, then he drove back to his campsite in Barranco the following morning. Later in the doc, the claim is that the girl was only with him a couple of hours each night from midnight until the early hours and then she went back home.

Another example of misleading people is the comments about the phone mast. He claimed in the build up that the phone could have been 30km away or something like that. Doesn't explain how he comes to that conclusion in the doc though. And when he asks HCW about it, he changes it to say his investigations found it could have been up to 30km away or up to 7km away. Where did the 7km figure come from all of a sudden? What happened to the assurance that the figure was 30km?

Another example is his claim he traced the phones to other users at the time of the offence. He didn't. The 683 number he traced to someone, there was zero evidence that this person had the phone 15 years ago, MWT and his expert even admit that it appears to be someone else who has since taken over the account. The 680 number was traced to a friend of CB and MWT states that a 'source' tells him this other man was using the phone from April to December 2006. This is the period CB was in prison for fuel theft and so there is a pretty obvious explanation as to why CB's friend would have had the phone at that time. If anything, it's further proof that CB did have this phone, the man that used it in 2006 (BP) has been spoken to by police several times and will have explained all the background of the phone no doubt.

Again, the whole thing was just sensationalised to sell the documentary. His actual investigation provided very little in the way of facts. Certainly nothing that would allow any objective minded person to conclude that CB is innocent. Yet MWT has decided to do exactly that, and I think it is a decision he may come to regret. I think he needs to get of his high horse and quit while he's behind. A lot of the criticism he is getting is entriely valid. JMO.
 
Last edited:

Davieson

Active Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2022
Messages
118
Reaction score
77
I can't see that MWT is undermining anything.
The police have got what evidence they have got and it will stand or fall in court.
Nothing any member of the public says or does can alter that.

These documentaries are little more than entertainment and shouldn't be taken too seriously in my opinion.
 

honestbroker

New Member
Joined
May 12, 2022
Messages
4
Reaction score
20
So Sandra F clearly hasn't learned her lesson about going round making accusations based on leaked "evidence"

What is the point of her "journalism" here is what this I ask? If the evidence exists, one assumes it will be tested in court. What is gained by ambushing HCW with it?

MWT is acting rather foolish IMO. It's all very well moaning about getting stick for making a documentary but he knew beforehand the ripples his statements would cause in such a controversial and highly charged case.

He is out of order to now start waging a campaign against the German authorities though. And he is a hypocrite in saying that by only focussing on CB as the suspect, the 'real killer' is getting away with it. In seeking to publicly undermine an ongoing murder enquiry, he is potentially assisting the real killer in getting away with it! MWT has absolutely zero proof of CB's innocence. All he has is a letter from CB saying he didn't do it. Guess what Mark?..... maybe he's fibbing to you. Maybe his lawyer is using you to promote their story for them.

It is sheer arrogance/gnorance on MWT's part to think he is better placed to judge than the 3 investigating forces, who have dozens of officers with far more reach and access than him, and who have been working this case for years.

He hasn't seen any of the main evidence they have on CB, and on the public evidence he did test out, he did not prove anything. At best he threw some speculative and unsubstantiated doubt around. That's what annoyed me most about the doc, it was the flagrant untruths touted in the build up to the doc. The main example being the claims of a corroborated alibi for CB.

It was intially reported in the press leaks that both CB and this girl claimed they were together the night of the third, stayed overnight in his van and they were both stopped at a roadblock the following morning. Sounds pretty explosive and vindicating for CB...

Then on 'This Morning' to promote his doc, MWT changed it to say the girl can't remember if she was definitely with CB on the 3rd but they were together 'most nights'. MWT said it was CB's claim that they were definitely together on the 3rd though. MWT then goes on to say the traffic stop was in the days after, either the "4th, 5th or 6th" he says.

Then in the actual doc, we find out from MWT that the traffic stop was actually on the 9th!! So why the hell did MWT claim it was the 4th, 5th or 6th in the lead up to the release knowing full well it was on the 9th? To make it sound more like a credible alibi and to sell us CB's 'story' IMO.

Then in the doc, we find out the girl can't actually remember anything about what dates she was with CB at all. Not only that, we find out that CB says in his letter that he isn't actually sure if he was with this woman on the 3rd either. He's just offering it up as somewhere he "might" have been. To cloud it even further, MWT seems to quote two different versions of how they used to meet up. First of all I think his source tells MWT that CB would pick her up in his campervan about 8 or 10pm, they spend all night together in his van, then he drove back to his campsite in Barranco the following morning. Later in the doc, the claim is that the girl was only with him a couple of hours each night from midnight until the early hours and then she went back home.

Another example of misleading people is the comments about the phone mast. He claimed in the build up that the phone could have been 30km away or something like that. Doesn't explain how he comes to that conclusion in the doc though. And when he asks HCW about it, he changes it to say his investigations found it could have been up to 30km away or up to 7km away. Where did the 7km figure come from all of a sudden? What happened to the assurance that the figure was 30km?

Another example is his claim he traced the phones to other users at the time of the offence. He didn't. The 683 number he traced to someone, there was zero evidence that this person had the phone 15 years ago, MWT and his expert even admit that it appears to be someone else who has since taken over the account. The 680 number was traced to a friend of CB and MWT states that a 'source' tells him this other man was using the phone from April to December 2006. This is the period CB was in prison for fuel theft and so there is a pretty obvious explanation as to why CB's friend would have had the phone at that time. If anything, it's further proof that CB did have this phone, the man that used it in 2006 (BP) has been spoken to by police several times and will have explained all the background of the phone no doubt.

Again, the whole thing was just sensationalised to sell the documentary. His actual investigation provided very little in the way of facts. Certainly nothing that would allow any objective minded person to conclude that CB is innocent. Yet MWT has decided to do exactly that, and I think it is a decision he may come to regret. I think he needs to get of his high horse and quit while he's behind. A lot of the criticism he is getting is entriely valid. JMO.
Good post.

I would add to that that the German prosecutor is under an obligation to look for evidence that would acquit, as well as convict.

What is the likelihood that more than one person, exactly matching the profile of someone capable of crime(s) against Madeleine, as a prolific house-burglar AND paedophile, being in close proximity to apartment 5a at the time Madeleine is known to have been snatched?

Pretty slim, I would have thought?

ETA: Unless I have missed something, the broadsheet English newspapers Times, Telegraph and Guardian don't seem to have said a word about MWT's documentary.
 

Davieson

Active Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2022
Messages
118
Reaction score
77
Good post.

I would add to that that the German prosecutor is under an obligation to look for evidence that would acquit, as well as convict.

What is the likelihood that more than one person, exactly matching the profile of someone capable of crime(s) against Madeleine, as a prolific house-burglar AND paedophile, being in close proximity to apartment 5a at the time Madeleine is known to have been snatched?

Pretty slim, I would have thought?

ETA: Unless I have missed something, the broadsheet English newspapers Times, Telegraph and Guardian don't seem to have said a word about MWT's documentary.
Who constructed the profile and at what date ?
 

Megnut

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
3,426
Reaction score
78,148
Regarding the claim that he was with his gf (not a gf, she was a victim of molestation), that they slept in the campervan all night, and that they were processed through a roadblock the next morning, I say all of those parts could be true and he could be responsible for the disappearance of MM.

He only needed a sliver of time without account to burglar and abduct, a skill he'd honed.

A 17 year old victim isn't going to be able to fathom (or diagnose) how someone could do that one minute and be normal-seeming a minute later.

I think it is possible. Snatch and stash.

i think MM could've been stashed there in the campervan, even with the 17 year old there, completely unaware.

Someone like CB isn't going to telegraph fear; he's going to contain thrill.

I think what is most confusing from a profile standpoint is that he doesn't fit the mold for a pedophile, but that's just it; IMO he's an indiscriminate violent sexual offender; the common denominator isn't age or type but vulnerability. It's about torture and control.

In the end, no one is safe.

JMO
 

Dlk79

Former Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
1,608
Reaction score
9,978
Regarding the claim that he was with his gf (not a gf, she was a victim of molestation), that they slept in the campervan all night, and that they were processed through a roadblock the next morning, I say all of those parts could be trie and he could be responsible for the disappearance of MM.
It turns out, there was no such claim. Just lies to promote the documentary. In the doc it was explained that the roadblock incident supposedly happened on the 9th, nearly a week later. The young girl doesn't recall what dates she spent with CB at all. CB isn't sure if he was with her on the 3rd either. He just suggests it as a possible alibi because he recalls seeing her around this time period. In other words, it's abolute nonsense.
 

SuperdadV8

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
10,054
It turns out, there was no such claim. Just lies to promote the documentary. In the doc it was explained that the roadblock incident supposedly happened on the 9th, nearly a week later. The young girl doesn't recall what dates she spent with CB at all. CB isn't sure if he was with her on the 3rd either. He just suggests it as a possible alibi because he recalls seeing her around this time period. In other words, it's abolute nonsense.
Let's say, the so called or alleged "alibi" doesn't seem to be suitable, to achieve progress in the ongoing investigation...
 

C.greek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2020
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
5,241
It turns out, there was no such claim. Just lies to promote the documentary. In the doc it was explained that the roadblock incident supposedly happened on the 9th, nearly a week later. The young girl doesn't recall what dates she spent with CB at all. CB isn't sure if he was with her on the 3rd either. He just suggests it as a possible alibi because he recalls seeing her around this time period. In other words, it's abolute nonsense.

and perhaps we should recall NF, who said that CB was spending most of his nights then with her... apart from that night that she didn't know whether he came to Foral and slept in his van, instead of waking her up. what a gent ...


"but in this, her first interview, the 44-year-old dramatically admitted she was dating Brueckner at the time three-year-old Madeleine vanished from her family’s holiday apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz."

"Ms Fehlinger recalls Brueckner ringing to say he would be driving his Winnebago campervan from the town of Tomar, 200 miles from the Algarve, to her home in Foral, 38 miles east of Praia da Luz, on the night Madeleine went missing, While the most direct route would not have taken him through Praia da Luz, Ms Fehlinger does not recall him arriving at her house that night. ‘I don’t know if he came late that night and parked his vehicle outside and slept in there, and left that morning again, or he did not turn up,’ she said."



 

C.greek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2020
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
5,241
and no idea if we should also take into consideration the other (3rd) girlfriend/fling of CB at that time around MM's disappearance... who according to the tabloids was having dinner with CB on the 2nd of May, the night before, when CB told her about the horrible job he had to do in PdL the next day and that she wouldn't be seeing him for a while...

The woman is one of two British former girlfriends of child sex offender Christian B who were dating him while he was in the Praia da Luz area of Portugal and have now given evidence to police.

Both live in fear of the German drug dealer, who beat them up, and have asked not to be identified.

One has told of a chilling conversation she had with Christian B over dinner on May 2, 2007 — the night before Madeleine, three, was abducted from her parents’ apartment in the Portuguese resort.

The then 30-year-old drifter told her: “I have a job to do in Praia da Luz tomorrow. It’s a horrible job but it’s something I have to do and it will change my life. You won’t be seeing me for a while.”

 

Dlk79

Former Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
1,608
Reaction score
9,978
and perhaps we should recall NF, who said that CB was spending most of his nights then with her... apart from that night that she didn't know whether he came to Foral and slept in his van, instead of waking her up. what a gent ...


"but in this, her first interview, the 44-year-old dramatically admitted she was dating Brueckner at the time three-year-old Madeleine vanished from her family’s holiday apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz."

"Ms Fehlinger recalls Brueckner ringing to say he would be driving his Winnebago campervan from the town of Tomar, 200 miles from the Algarve, to her home in Foral, 38 miles east of Praia da Luz, on the night Madeleine went missing, While the most direct route would not have taken him through Praia da Luz, Ms Fehlinger does not recall him arriving at her house that night. ‘I don’t know if he came late that night and parked his vehicle outside and slept in there, and left that morning again, or he did not turn up,’ she said."



Yeah, funnily enough, MWT didn't mention NF in his doc. Not once. Despite the fact they know he lived in Foral with her, that the two were in a relationship around the time, and that it is claimed CB was going to meet her that evening of the 3rd. He even interviewed NF's father and her former landlord, yet the common relationship between them all was completely omitted from discussion. Almost seems like it was deliberate. :rolleyes:
 

Davieson

Active Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2022
Messages
118
Reaction score
77
Yeah, funnily enough, MWT didn't mention NF in his doc. Not once. Despite the fact they know he lived in Foral with her, that the two were in a relationship around the time, and that it is claimed CB was going to meet her that evening of the 3rd. He even interviewed NF's father and her former landlord, yet the common relationship between them all was completely omitted from discussion. Almost seems like it was deliberate. :rolleyes:
His 90 minute epic was heavily edited from the original so perhaps some of the things you seem concerned about are languishing on the cutting room floor.
 

shonyakay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
122
Reaction score
608
I think it would be interesting to know what else is in the vicinity of where the phone is supposed to have been located. EG coffee shops, bars, shops etc. The image portrayed is of Brueckner, or someone else standing the street for 30 minutes, whereas the person might have been having a drink, or even visiting a friend in a nearby building.


I wonder if CB's alleged phone signal could have been picked up in the area of an internet café. I have read elsewhere that the phone was put within 5 to 6 minutes of Apartment 5A so that is why I was interested when I found that Vodafone information in that small area.

Andy Redwood relayed that on May 2, 2007 at noon a suspicious man was seen around the reception area of the Ocean Club. At 1:00 p.m. he is spotted along with an associate at a nearby internet café. There are a few internet café's in the area close to the Smith sighting. i.e. not too far from Apartment 5A.
 

Anxala

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
660
Reaction score
2,306
I can't see that MWT is undermining anything.
The police have got what evidence they have got and it will stand or fall in court.
Nothing any member of the public says or does can alter that.

These documentaries are little more than entertainment and shouldn't be taken too seriously in my opinion.

I agree. As someone who (rightly, just saying) side-eyed this doc from the off, I'm not remotely surprised it delivered nothing but presumably a paycheck for MWT.

<modsnip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top