Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #21

[altojack]

I too see a Meerkat at the rear of the vehicle next to the bumper.

 

[redplanet]

Either this is a mad post, or I might have nailed the exact location of the VW image. Difficult to see the fence posts on the June 2007 images, but more visible in the 2018. To me anyway The grass verge before the stream with the reeds would have been much greener and plentiful early May
View attachment 274001View attachment 274000View attachment 274003View attachment 274002

Google Maps
37°08'14.55" N 8°46'09.30" W

At the north end of that unsurfaced road, where it meets the M535+1, near the sports arena, is a parking area for coaches, which has some camper vans in. (edited by me)

 

[Sharkbite]

At the north end of that unsurfaced road, where it meets the M535+1, near the sports arena, is a parking area for coaches, which has some camper vans in, it is labelled on googlemaps "hippieville"

This is where the Hippie market used to be held every 4th Sunday of the month.

 

[tedtink]

Either this is a mad post, or I might have nailed the exact location of the VW image. Difficult to see the fence posts on the June 2007 images, but more visible in the 2018. To me anyway The grass verge before the stream with the reeds would have been much greener and plentiful early May
View attachment 274001View attachment 274000View attachment 274003View attachment 274002

Google Maps
37°08'14.55" N 8°46'09.30" W

Really good find Shark.
I'd like to add during winter/spring the colour of the dirt track takes on a darker (amber-ish) hue, when damp/wet.
Can't upload a pic atm, but have looked at the entrance to the hippie market for November 2009 on G/Maps

 

[mrjitty]

I've been doing a thought experiment today, to try to make sense out of everything we know.

Let's assume HCW has a big piece of evidence that gives him 100% conviction. It explains everything, but maybe he can't use it, or its too hard to prove it. But he knows what happened.

Could it be that the whole thing has been some kind of carnival hall of mirrors? In fear and confusion, key witnesses massaged and contaminated each others evidence and thus both obscured the real events and cast suspicion on themselves?

For example - what if there are no blowing curtains, no open shutters, no relevant checks, no gangs of abductors or people lurking and observing?

What if CB just got a call that the friends had dinner every night, drank a lot, and the coast would mainly be clear for theft, apart from the odd check?

What if he just walked in the open door, and did the abduction and he had an hour or more?

When I ask myself what we can really be sure about with this case, I do wonder if the statements more obscure events than reveal them. But if we discard them, things get much easier.

So I am not sure where I am going with this just now, but if I do find myself wondering if the truth was much more mundane, but then as the media storm built from the 4th, a folklore was created under frankly insane pressure

For me this would explain why HCW does not care about Dogs, Tannerman, Smithman etc. None of that stuff is relevant to the case.

It would also explain why he does not seek to speak to the key witnesses about the timeline.

He already knows none of them saw anything relevant.

 

[redplanet]

Square wooden posts, of the correct proportions, with rope, would be required to confirm the location.

 

[redplanet]

I've been doing a thought experiment today, to try to make sense out of everything we know.

Let's assume HCW has a big piece of evidence that gives him 100% conviction. It explains everything, but maybe he can't use it, or its too hard to prove it. But he knows what happened.

Could it be that the whole thing has been some kind of carnival hall of mirrors? In fear and confusion, key witnesses massaged and contaminated each others evidence and thus both obscured the real events and cast suspicion on themselves?

For example - what if there are no blowing curtains, no open shutters, no relevant checks, no gangs of abductors or people lurking and observing?

What if CB just got a call that the friends had dinner every night, drank a lot, and the coast would mainly be clear for theft, apart from the odd check?

What if he just walked in the open door, and did the abduction and he had an hour or more?

When I ask myself what we can really be sure about with this case, I do wonder if the statements more obscure events than reveal them. But if we discard them, things get much easier.

IMO no phonecall from any insider is required. This guy did burglaries anyway, sometimes while occupants were out for a meal.

 

[redplanet]

This is where the Hippie market used to be held every 4th Sunday of the month.

Maybe he parked/camped on that unsurfaced track because the parking area was completely full? A market weekend maybe?

 

[redplanet]

So Sunday markets at BSJ on 25 Mar and 22 Apr presumably.
He was in Malaga reportedly on Sat 30 Mar (the only Westphalia photo we can accurately date)

 

[redplanet]

I've been doing a thought experiment today, to try to make sense out of everything we know.

Let's assume HCW has a big piece of evidence that gives him 100% conviction. It explains everything, but maybe he can't use it, or its too hard to prove it. But he knows what happened.

Could it be that the whole thing has been some kind of carnival hall of mirrors? In fear and confusion, key witnesses massaged and contaminated each others evidence and thus both obscured the real events and cast suspicion on themselves?

For example - what if there are no blowing curtains, no open shutters, no relevant checks, no gangs of abductors or people lurking and observing?

What if CB just got a call that the friends had dinner every night, drank a lot, and the coast would mainly be clear for theft, apart from the odd check?

What if he just walked in the open door, and did the abduction and he had an hour or more?

When I ask myself what we can really be sure about with this case, I do wonder if the statements more obscure events than reveal them. But if we discard them, things get much easier.

So I am not sure where I am going with this just now, but if I do find myself wondering if the truth was much more mundane, but then as the media storm built from the 4th, a folklore was created under frankly insane pressure

For me this would explain why HCW does not care about Dogs, Tannerman, Smithman etc. None of that stuff is relevant to the case.

It would also explain why he does not seek to speak to the key witnesses about the timeline.

He already knows none of them saw anything relevant.

Your interesting thought experiment has no open shutter or window, and therefore has no evidence of any entry into the apartment by CB.

 

[Newthoughts]

Your interesting thought experiment has no open shutter or window, and therefore has no evidence of any entry into the apartment by CB.

The patio door was unlocked

 

[Newthoughts]

I've been doing a thought experiment today, to try to make sense out of everything we know.

Let's assume HCW has a big piece of evidence that gives him 100% conviction. It explains everything, but maybe he can't use it, or its too hard to prove it. But he knows what happened.

Could it be that the whole thing has been some kind of carnival hall of mirrors? In fear and confusion, key witnesses massaged and contaminated each others evidence and thus both obscured the real events and cast suspicion on themselves?

For example - what if there are no blowing curtains, no open shutters, no relevant checks, no gangs of abductors or people lurking and observing?

What if CB just got a call that the friends had dinner every night, drank a lot, and the coast would mainly be clear for theft, apart from the odd check?

What if he just walked in the open door, and did the abduction and he had an hour or more?

When I ask myself what we can really be sure about with this case, I do wonder if the statements more obscure events than reveal them. But if we discard them, things get much easier.

So I am not sure where I am going with this just now, but if I do find myself wondering if the truth was much more mundane, but then as the media storm built from the 4th, a folklore was created under frankly insane pressure

For me this would explain why HCW does not care about Dogs, Tannerman, Smithman etc. None of that stuff is relevant to the case.

It would also explain why he does not seek to speak to the key witnesses about the timeline.

He already knows none of them saw anything relevant.

Why clear for theft? Why nor abduction? He is a convicted rapist and child abuser. I think that was HIS aim if not anyone elses particularly.

Other than that I think your thought experiment is interesting apart from leaving FF with your carnival of mirrors to cast reasonable doubt

 

[Dlk79]

So Sunday markets at BSJ on 25 Mar and 22 Apr presumably.
He was in Malaga reportedly on Sat 30 Mar (the only Westphalia photo we can accurately date)

Certainly fits that it was at around this time. The 2 photos could well have been taken near to this location IMO. I spent time previously looking at YouTube videos around BSJ in hope one might show those posts but with no luck.

It also fits with the story about the raves he attended there -

She said she remembers Brueckner from the parties held on a farm in Barao de Sao Joa, near to the town of Lagos where he occasionally worked at a bar.

Revealing he always spoke English and hung around with a lookalike pal who she also thought was British, she added in the interview with Portuguese TV station TVI: 'I thought the other man was a brother or a friend.

'Both were tall and both were blond-haired.

'One had blue eyes and the other had green eyes. I thought both of them were English until I found out now one of them was German.

'I always assumed they were English because I always heard them speaking in English.

'I immediately knew the new Madeleine McCann suspect was him when I saw the camper van on TV. It was the one he used. The last time I saw him was in 2007 shortly before Madeleine vanished.'
Madeleine McCann suspect gave 'young girls drugs in exchange for sex'

 

[Sharkbite]

Certainly fits that it was at around this time. The 2 photos could well have been taken near to this location IMO. I spent time previously looking at YouTube videos around BSJ in hope one might show those posts but with no luck.

It also fits with the story about the raves he attended there -

She said she remembers Brueckner from the parties held on a farm in Barao de Sao Joa, near to the town of Lagos where he occasionally worked at a bar.

Revealing he always spoke English and hung around with a lookalike pal who she also thought was British, she added in the interview with Portuguese TV station TVI: 'I thought the other man was a brother or a friend.

'Both were tall and both were blond-haired.

'One had blue eyes and the other had green eyes. I thought both of them were English until I found out now one of them was German.

'I always assumed they were English because I always heard them speaking in English.

'I immediately knew the new Madeleine McCann suspect was him when I saw the camper van on TV. It was the one he used. The last time I saw him was in 2007 shortly before Madeleine vanished.'
Madeleine McCann suspect gave 'young girls drugs in exchange for sex'

So we have this witness and MT placing CB in BSJ early 2007, with MT saying that CB was camping out in the area. You can't park up and camp anywhere in Portugal, but it seems to have been tolerated at the market area judging by the vehicles pitched up there over the different Google dates. I think this might be where CB would have been camping out at that time.

 

[Dlk79]

I've been doing a thought experiment today, to try to make sense out of everything we know.

Let's assume HCW has a big piece of evidence that gives him 100% conviction. It explains everything, but maybe he can't use it, or its too hard to prove it. But he knows what happened.

Could it be that the whole thing has been some kind of carnival hall of mirrors? In fear and confusion, key witnesses massaged and contaminated each others evidence and thus both obscured the real events and cast suspicion on themselves?

For example - what if there are no blowing curtains, no open shutters, no relevant checks, no gangs of abductors or people lurking and observing?

What if CB just got a call that the friends had dinner every night, drank a lot, and the coast would mainly be clear for theft, apart from the odd check?

What if he just walked in the open door, and did the abduction and he had an hour or more?

When I ask myself what we can really be sure about with this case, I do wonder if the statements more obscure events than reveal them. But if we discard them, things get much easier.

So I am not sure where I am going with this just now, but if I do find myself wondering if the truth was much more mundane, but then as the media storm built from the 4th, a folklore was created under frankly insane pressure

For me this would explain why HCW does not care about Dogs, Tannerman, Smithman etc. None of that stuff is relevant to the case.

It would also explain why he does not seek to speak to the key witnesses about the timeline.

He already knows none of them saw anything relevant.

I don't know how much more they could hope to obtain from re-interviewing the witnesses about the timeline but I tend to agree with you with regards to the Smith/Tanner sightings. Listening to the podcast again, this is what is said about it.

Interviewer: There was a sighting of a man carrying a child May 3rd, 10 o'clock that night. And you say you are looking for witnesses, he was walking towards the beach, carrying a child that looked a lot like Madeleine. It was an Irish family that saw him, have you spoken to them?

HCW: I know the picture, and I think we have, um, everything from this witness. But I'm not allowed to speak about the details.

Interviewer: Sure. Have you interviewed ths Smith family in Ireland about this sighting?

HCW: I... I don't know if we interviewed the family, or if the British police interviewed the family or the Portuguese police, I don't know. If one of those polices, um, interviewed the family, I'm sure that we have the result of this interview.
'Madeleine is Dead' - They've Taken Her - Omny.fm

In the press reports where MS states he does not recognise CB, it also says that German police have never been in contact with him, nor has the Met since he gave his last statement 6 years ago. He talks about seeing CB's picture for the first time in the recent press.

From HCW's comments, and MS's recent account, It seems to me that German LE believe this sighting has nothing to do with MM's disappearance. It's not clear if HCW even knows which sighting the interviewer is talking about initially, since he interrupts before the interviewer says "Irish family" and talks about knowing "the picture". What picture? Does he mean the Tannerman sketch? In which case, have they ruled that scenario out too?

The question is, why, given how desperate they are for witnesses, would they not have followed up on these potential sightings? Why not at least see if they recognised CB? For me, it must surely be that the evidence they have of the crime tells them this sighting could not possibly have been CB and MM. For them to know that, they'd need more information than simply CB having killed MM.

Unless they can somehow place CB/MM at another location and time that makes the sighting impossible, I'd lean towards them knowing something about the course of events that night that tells them CB did something specific that simply doesn’t fit with these sightings.

 

[axelcruze]

I've been doing a thought experiment today, to try to make sense out of everything we know.

Let's assume HCW has a big piece of evidence that gives him 100% conviction. It explains everything, but maybe he can't use it, or its too hard to prove it. But he knows what happened.

Could it be that the whole thing has been some kind of carnival hall of mirrors? In fear and confusion, key witnesses massaged and contaminated each others evidence and thus both obscured the real events and cast suspicion on themselves?

For example - what if there are no blowing curtains, no open shutters, no relevant checks, no gangs of abductors or people lurking and observing?

What if CB just got a call that the friends had dinner every night, drank a lot, and the coast would mainly be clear for theft, apart from the odd check?

What if he just walked in the open door, and did the abduction and he had an hour or more?

When I ask myself what we can really be sure about with this case, I do wonder if the statements more obscure events than reveal them. But if we discard them, things get much easier.

So I am not sure where I am going with this just now, but if I do find myself wondering if the truth was much more mundane, but then as the media storm built from the 4th, a folklore was created under frankly insane pressure

For me this would explain why HCW does not care about Dogs, Tannerman, Smithman etc. None of that stuff is relevant to the case.

It would also explain why he does not seek to speak to the key witnesses about the timeline.

He already knows none of them saw anything relevant.

It could well have been an obscure event, under normal circumstances he'd not have got away with this but a combination of the last paragraph makes it difficult for the prosecutor HCW to nail it In one shot and must therefore tale his current approach.

 

[axelcruze]

I don't know how much more they could hope to obtain from re-interviewing the witnesses about the timeline but I tend to agree with you with regards to the Smith/Tanner sightings. Listening to the podcast again, this is what is said about it.

Interviewer: There was a sighting of a man carrying a child May 3rd, 10 o'clock that night. And you say you are looking for witnesses, he was walking towards the beach, carrying a child that looked a lot like Madeleine. It was an Irish family that saw him, have you spoken to them?

HCW: I know the picture, and I think we have, um, everything from this witness. But I'm not allowed to speak about the details.

Interviewer: Sure. Have you interviewed ths Smith family in Ireland about this sighting?

HCW: I... I don't know if we interviewed the family, or if the British police interviewed the family or the Portuguese police, I don't know. If one of those polices, um, interviewed the family, I'm sure that we have the result of this interview.
'Madeleine is Dead' - They've Taken Her - Omny.fm

In the press reports where MS states he does not recognise CB, it also says that German police have never been in contact with him, nor has the Met since he gave his last statement 6 years ago. He talks about seeing CB's picture for the first time in the recent press.

From HCW's comments, and MS's recent account, It seems to me that German LE believe this sighting has nothing to do with MM's disappearance. It's not clear if HCW even knows which sighting the interviewer is talking about initially, since he interrupts before the interviewer says "Irish family" and talks about knowing "the picture". What picture? Does he mean the Tannerman sketch? In which case, have they ruled that scenario out too?

The question is, why, given how desperate they are for witnesses, would they not have followed up on these potential sightings? Why not at least see if they recognised CB? For me, it must surely be that the evidence they have of the crime tells them this sighting could not possibly have been CB and MM. For them to know that, they'd need more information than simply CB having killed MM.

Unless they can somehow place CB/MM at another location and time that makes the sighting impossible, I'd lean towards them knowing something about the course of events that night that tells them CB did something specific that simply doesn’t fit with these sightings.

Would you call to the witness stand, Jane Tanner ... Unreliable mate. Changed accounts several times, she was probably pissed and not even GM or JW seen her. FF would love that.....

 

[Bethan]

I've been doing a thought experiment today, to try to make sense out of everything we know.

Let's assume HCW has a big piece of evidence that gives him 100% conviction. It explains everything, but maybe he can't use it, or its too hard to prove it. But he knows what happened.

Could it be that the whole thing has been some kind of carnival hall of mirrors? In fear and confusion, key witnesses massaged and contaminated each others evidence and thus both obscured the real events and cast suspicion on themselves?

For example - what if there are no blowing curtains, no open shutters, no relevant checks, no gangs of abductors or people lurking and observing?

What if CB just got a call that the friends had dinner every night, drank a lot, and the coast would mainly be clear for theft, apart from the odd check?

What if he just walked in the open door, and did the abduction and he had an hour or more?

When I ask myself what we can really be sure about with this case, I do wonder if the statements more obscure events than reveal them. But if we discard them, things get much easier.

So I am not sure where I am going with this just now, but if I do find myself wondering if the truth was much more mundane, but then as the media storm built from the 4th, a folklore was created under frankly insane pressure

For me this would explain why HCW does not care about Dogs, Tannerman, Smithman etc. None of that stuff is relevant to the case.

It would also explain why he does not seek to speak to the key witnesses about the timeline.

He already knows none of them saw anything relevant.

I agree with you Mr Jitty.

I think the statements & timings given by the ‘Tapas 9’ regarding that fateful night are unreliable for a number of reasons....hence there is no accurate timeline to work with.

All MOO

 

[redplanet]

I don't know how much more they could hope to obtain from re-interviewing the witnesses about the timeline but I tend to agree with you with regards to the Smith/Tanner sightings. Listening to the podcast again, this is what is said about it.

Interviewer: There was a sighting of a man carrying a child May 3rd, 10 o'clock that night. And you say you are looking for witnesses, he was walking towards the beach, carrying a child that looked a lot like Madeleine. It was an Irish family that saw him, have you spoken to them?

HCW: I know the picture, and I think we have, um, everything from this witness. But I'm not allowed to speak about the details.

Interviewer: Sure. Have you interviewed ths Smith family in Ireland about this sighting?

HCW: I... I don't know if we interviewed the family, or if the British police interviewed the family or the Portuguese police, I don't know. If one of those polices, um, interviewed the family, I'm sure that we have the result of this interview.
'Madeleine is Dead' - They've Taken Her - Omny.fm

In the press reports where MS states he does not recognise CB, it also says that German police have never been in contact with him, nor has the Met since he gave his last statement 6 years ago. He talks about seeing CB's picture for the first time in the recent press.

From HCW's comments, and MS's recent account, It seems to me that German LE believe this sighting has nothing to do with MM's disappearance. It's not clear if HCW even knows which sighting the interviewer is talking about initially, since he interrupts before the interviewer says "Irish family" and talks about knowing "the picture". What picture? Does he mean the Tannerman sketch? In which case, have they ruled that scenario out too?

The question is, why, given how desperate they are for witnesses, would they not have followed up on these potential sightings? Why not at least see if they recognised CB? For me, it must surely be that the evidence they have of the crime tells them this sighting could not possibly have been CB and MM. For them to know that, they'd need more information than simply CB having killed MM.

Unless they can somehow place CB/MM at another location and time that makes the sighting impossible, I'd lean towards them knowing something about the course of events that night that tells them CB did something specific that simply doesn’t fit with these sightings.

Yes "this picture" implies HCW is initially thinking JT sighting. And HCW talking initially of just one witness, also implies he is thinking JT sighting.
So one may deduce IMO he has no interest in sighting by JT nor in sighting by S family.
And it is interesting IMO to ponder: Why no interest in visible carrying?

 

[redplanet]

Yes "this picture" implies HCW is initially thinking JT sighting. And HCW talking initially of just one witness, also implies he is thinking JT sighting.
So one may deduce IMO he has no interest in sighting by JT nor in sighting by S family.
And it is interesting IMO to ponder: Why no interest in visible carrying?

... guessing ...
1. maybe HCW knows that the carrying out from the building was done by a not-plainly-visible method???