Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #24

[Lilly b]

When in Lisbon, NF introduced CB as Roman in order to confuse witnesses. So, when asked by LE, the witness has another image or e-fit for CB and R. it works both way. NF was covering for both. and i’m pretty sure she’s reading us and laughing. They were all running scams etc. nasty people. By the way CB and NF were born days apart in the same village. I read she had a complicated life, etc. both are similar in coldness. Floral was their playground. Both only cared about $$. IMO she was the one he ran out to Portugal with. What do you guys think?

Interesting

 

[Dlk79]

When in Lisbon, NF introduced CB as Roman in order to confuse witnesses. So, when asked by LE, the witness has another image or e-fit for CB and R. it works both way. NF was covering for both. and i’m pretty sure she’s reading us and laughing. They were all running scams etc. nasty people. By the way CB and NF were born days apart in the same village. I read she had a complicated life, etc. both are similar in coldness. Floral was their playground. Both only cared about $$. IMO she was the one he ran out to Portugal with. What do you guys think?

Personally, I don't think she was the girlfriend who he fled to Portugal with in 1995. NF claims to have met CB much later on in Foral:

"One day I came home and he was in my neighbour’s garden and they were talking about cars.

‘My neighbour told me he was German and he introduced me. Because we are both German we started talking.

‘Sometime later he asked if he could park his campervan outside my house. He asked if he could take water and some electricity. I said why not.’
Pictured: 'Ex-lover' of Madeleine McCann suspect

She could be lying of course, but I'd have thought others would be quick to point it out if they were a couple over a decade prior to that.

As for her being an accomplice, HCW has gone on the record to say they don't believe this to be the case:

The prosecutor also rubbished reports earlier this week that German police believed the chief Madeleine McCann suspect had an accomplice, and addressed earlier accusations made on Portuguese TV Brueckner’s ’ex’ girlfriend Nicole Fehlinger was involved in an Algarve burglary he was linked to.

He said: “Naturally we investigate everyone known to us to see if they had something to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.

“This woman was the suspect’s ex-girlfriend and she is classed as a witness but we don’t have any reason to believe she is linked to this crime.

“She is not a suspect for us. We are only investigating Christian B, nobody else. At this stage we believe he acted alone in this case.”
Madeleine McCann police have 'no smoking gun' to charge Christian Brueckner

Again, perhaps he is wrong, or knows something he doesn't want to reveal. But at the moment, I'm leaning towards NF not being directly involved in MM's disappearance.

 

[Dlk79]

You might well be right. I just find it hard to reconcile that the BS was maintained in the 10 May statements. By this point, a little girl with definitely missing would you would hope would be more important than the group being neglectful and irresponsible - I think most people would come clean at this point and tell the absolute truth, even if it didn’t supports the Tannerman theory.

Based on what you’re saying then, the window is from GM’s to KM’s checks, 50 mins or so.

If you’re right, I just don’t know how MO has stuck with it. I feel like he must have gone into 5A otherwise he has been in a very uncomfortable position emotionally for 14 years.

I'm still undecided to be honest. Could be a fabrication, could be true, but I do think there are definitely embellishments or mistaken recollections in his story.

Assuming however, that he did lie about going into 5A, I don't really see any incentive for him to come clean about it after he's committed to that story. Adding to the points others have already made about the potential fallout etc, how would that new information actually help the investigation into MM? His account already allows for MM's disappearance to have taken place either before or after his 9.30 check since he says didn't see her.

Not that any of this matters a great deal. Even if his account is 100% truthful, it tells us very little about what might have happened between the McCann's leaving the apartment and them finding MM missing around 10pm. Other than there being no blatantly obvious activity occurring for a 2 minute period around 9.30pm.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I'm still undecided to be honest. Could be a fabrication, could be true, but I do think there are definitely embellishments or mistaken recollections in his story.

Assuming however, that he did lie about going into 5A, I don't really see any incentive for him to come clean about it after he's committed to that story. Adding to the points others have already made about the potential fallout etc, how would that new information actually help the investigation into MM? His account already allows for MM's disappearance to have taken place either before or after his 9.30 check since he says didn't see her.

Not that any of this matters a great deal. Even if his account is 100% truthful, it tells us very little about what might have happened between the McCann's leaving the apartment and them finding MM missing around 10pm. Other than there being no blatantly obvious activity occurring for a 2 minute period around 9.30pm.

I agree with your first point once time has passed but on 10 May while they are in the middle of a nightmare he would have had to have chosen to lie. He might have, but I think it would have been difficult for him in that situation.

I think it could matter if, as @mrjitty suggests, there is something wrong with the timeline and the Tapas group are the target of the UK media. Now though, given your points, it is more likely something wrong with GM’s or KM’s timing if Mr Jitty is right.

I’m not disagreeing with anything you’ve said. I think it explains a lot about the Tapas’ Group behaviour. I guess I just thought that personal integrity and finding MM would be more important than sticking to a BS tale created to save people’s reputations.

 

[Sagwa]

Personally, I don't think she was the girlfriend who he fled to Portugal with in 1995. NF claims to have met CB much later on in Foral:

"One day I came home and he was in my neighbour’s garden and they were talking about cars.

‘My neighbour told me he was German and he introduced me. Because we are both German we started talking.

‘Sometime later he asked if he could park his campervan outside my house. He asked if he could take water and some electricity. I said why not.’
Pictured: 'Ex-lover' of Madeleine McCann suspect

She could be lying of course, but I'd have thought others would be quick to point it out if they were a couple over a decade prior to that.

As for her being an accomplice, HCW has gone on the record to say they don't believe this to be the case:

The prosecutor also rubbished reports earlier this week that German police believed the chief Madeleine McCann suspect had an accomplice, and addressed earlier accusations made on Portuguese TV Brueckner’s ’ex’ girlfriend Nicole Fehlinger was involved in an Algarve burglary he was linked to.

He said: “Naturally we investigate everyone known to us to see if they had something to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.

“This woman was the suspect’s ex-girlfriend and she is classed as a witness but we don’t have any reason to believe she is linked to this crime.

“She is not a suspect for us. We are only investigating Christian B, nobody else. At this stage we believe he acted alone in this case.”
Madeleine McCann police have 'no smoking gun' to charge Christian Brueckner

Again, perhaps he is wrong, or knows something he doesn't want to reveal. But at the moment, I'm leaning towards NF not being directly involved in MM's disappearance.

I completely understand your point and I thought the same thing. but if he really did not have accomplices. why would HCW care about the phone a call made 14 years ago? (the caller knew something but it’s too late now. HCW does not need to prove accomplices’ roles now because the crime done is worse.

 

[tedtink]

I completely understand your point and I thought the same thing. but if he really did not have accomplices. why would HCW care about the phone a call made 14 years ago? (the caller knew something but it’s too late now. HCW does not need to prove accomplices’ roles now because the crime done is worse.

HCW has said that they need confirmation that the phone was 'in CB's hand' at that time, in PDL, on May 3 07 and that it wasn't someone else who had borrowed his phone that evening, which is unlikely.

They want to trace the other caller, to confirm that it was actually CB they were talking to, thus placing CB near the crime scene, as per phone records.

The other caller may have been completely unaware what CB's plans were that evening. ie a innocent call, catch up with a mate, ex GF etc, so not necessarily an accomplice.

 

[Dlk79]

I completely understand your point and I thought the same thing. but if he really did not have accomplices. why would HCW care about the phone a call made 14 years ago? (the caller knew something but it’s too late now. HCW does not need to prove accomplices’ roles now because the crime done is worse.

Well again, taking what HCW has actually said on it, the main reason seems to be to prove beyond doubt that the phone was being used by CB on that night.

Also, it depends what you mean by an accomplice. It's possible someone may have been giving information about when to target an apartment for a robbery without being an acccomplice to any murder/abduction plot.

Mr Wolters said: "This is of interest to us. The phone call made by the suspect could be between him and a member of staff who told him when to break into the McCanns’ apartment."

They added there is no evidence the employee knew about Madeleine's kidnap in advance, but speaking to the person who made the phone call could help them understand what happened that night.

Mr Wolters said: "At the moment if we interview the suspect he could say, ‘My girlfriend had my phone that night and I didn’t have it’.

"The person he spoke to could put the phone in his hand [by confirming that it was definitely Brückner to whom he spoke], which would mean he was in the area at the time.

"This is the evidence we want before we issue an arrest warrant and then interview him for the murder. It would help the case against him — but we would also need more evidence."
The 30-minute phone call police hope will finally solve Madeleine McCann mystery

 

[Dlk79]

I agree with your first point once time has passed but on 10 May while they are in the middle of a nightmare he would have had to have chosen to lie. He might have, but I think it would have been difficult for him in that situation.

I think it could matter if, as @mrjitty suggests, there is something wrong with the timeline and the Tapas group are the target of the UK media. Now though, given your points, it is more likely something wrong with GM’s or KM’s timing if Mr Jitty is right.

I’m not disagreeing with anything you’ve said. I think it explains a lot about the Tapas’ Group behaviour. I guess I just thought that personal integrity and finding MM would be more important than sticking to a BS tale created to save people’s reputations.

I sort of disagree there. If he'd lied initially, I think it would have been far more difficult for him (and brave) to admit that on the 10th of May than to stick with his story. It would have caused LE to doubt everything the group had told them thus far and put the focus on them rather than any external culprit.

Also, remember at this point (and possibly even still to this day), the entire Tapas group firmly believed the man JT saw around 9.15 was carrying MM away. So in his mind, the check he did (or didn't do) at 9.30 didn't really matter since they believed MM had already been taken by then. He might even have thought his account helped reinforce this probability by implying that the shutter was already up, and therefore nudging LE in what they thought was the right direction - to focus on Tannerman.

 

[mrjitty]

today:
Madeleine McCann's parents are STILL having to pay legal fees to fight Portuguese detective
Documents reveal the McCann's face ongoing expenses as part of libel action
Two years ago court files showed the couple had had to fork out £29,500 on legal fees for Amaral. Since then they have had to pay out a further £4,229 in legal costs making a total of nearly £34,000.

The European Court of Human Rights is due to rule on a further legal appeal shortly and if the McCanns lose the right to appeal they will have to pay still further court costs to Amaral.

Madeleine McCann's parents are STILL having to pay legal fees to fight Portuguese detective | Daily Mail Online

People who bring legal proceedings forced to pay legal costs shocker

Also, as has been pointed out here before, Amaral has nothing to do with the ECHR case, which is not an appeal of the Lisbon decision.

The McCanns lost in Lisbon in the Supreme Court. That decision is final. There is no higher court to appeal to.

The counterparty in the ECHR case is the government of portugal.

It's farcical how over multiple years, the tabloids continue to mislead the public that the parents are still litigating their case with Amaral.

 

[mrjitty]

I sort of disagree there. If he'd lied initially, I think it would have been far more difficult for him (and brave) to admit that on the 10th of May than to stick with his story. It would have caused LE to doubt everything the group had told them thus far and put the focus on them rather than any external culprit.

Also, remember at this point (and possibly even still to this day), the entire Tapas group firmly believed the man JT saw around 9.15 was carrying MM away. So in his mind, the check he did (or didn't do) at 9.30 didn't really matter since they believed MM had already been taken by then. He might even have thought his account helped reinforce this probability by implying that the shutter was already up, and therefore nudging LE in what they thought was the right direction - to focus on Tannerman.

Agreed. I also think this is exactly what happened with JT.

The RM identification was her offramp because she assumed they had the right guy. Then Redwood gave her another offramp.

Of course there is no way to reconcile the tannerman sketch, RM, and trotman - which is also the problem for MO.

 

[mrjitty]

I'm still undecided to be honest. Could be a fabrication, could be true, but I do think there are definitely embellishments or mistaken recollections in his story.

Assuming however, that he did lie about going into 5A, I don't really see any incentive for him to come clean about it after he's committed to that story. Adding to the points others have already made about the potential fallout etc, how would that new information actually help the investigation into MM? His account already allows for MM's disappearance to have taken place either before or after his 9.30 check since he says didn't see her.

Not that any of this matters a great deal. Even if his account is 100% truthful, it tells us very little about what might have happened between the McCann's leaving the apartment and them finding MM missing around 10pm. Other than there being no blatantly obvious activity occurring for a 2 minute period around 9.30pm.

It might matter if CBs confession is significantly different to the witnesses statements.

Hypothetically - what if CB's version is he waited for GM to leave, entered via the patio, was present for 30 mins, and never opened the window?

Not saying that is his version - but that kind of thing could pose significant difficulties, unless HCW has something that renders 5A irrelevant.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

It might matter if CBs confession is significantly different to the witnesses statements.

This is what I was getting at.

Following on from this and just trying think it through, MO’s statements are either BS or don’t rule anything in or out. This means the critical statements are GM’s and KM’s.

I can’t see how KM’s statement would conflict with any confession CB might have made. She went to 5A at 10ish and MM was gone.

GM’s statement could be a real problem though. Just for example, let’s say that CB’s confession is that he took MM at 8:35pm, immediately after the McCanns left for dinner. Perhaps this time can be confirmed by another call from CB’s phone.

If this scenario, or similar were the case, wouldn’t GM’s statement be a real problem for HCW.

Didn’t GM also change his mind about the door he used to enter 5A between statements? Didn’t ge also add some superfluous info about looking at MM and recall how much he loved her? Is his statement as dubious as MO’s but more commital?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Further to the above post, I looked back through GM’s statements.

The timeline written by the Tapas Group on the kids book is in his 9 September statement. One of the notes, attached below, specifically asks “? Did he check”. This is right under the 9:10-9:15pm check.

I wonder why this question was asked?

Is it possible he met JW on the way to 5A not on the way from it?

 

[Okapi]

This is a great update of the timeline, incorporating the CB phone call, the Tapas group's checking times and also witness sightings including the Irish family, the bogus charity collectors, and the blonde man loitering.

A timeline of Madeleine McCann's disappearance as parents mark her 18th birthday

 

[Trivento]

This is a great update of the timeline, incorporating the CB phone call, the Tapas group's checking times and also witness sightings including the Irish family, the bogus charity collectors, and the blonde man loitering.

A timeline of Madeleine McCann's disappearance as parents mark her 18th birthday

This reminds that there was probably about a 25 min window ( not just a few minutes as perhaps FF suggested) for the abduction from about 9.35-10pm between MO and KM checks , which fits even assuming Tapas statements reasonably accurate.
Also ties with Panorama programme estimate by our friend Mr.Janosch that abduction took place around 950pm ( which would also match with Smith sighting at about 10pm )
Unless someone has other info that would narrow that 25 min window ?
Abductor could also have been in 5A longer time hiding of course ( perhaps behind sofa or suchlike ) , even when earlier GM and MO checks carried out..imo..

 

[Dlk79]

Further to the above post, I looked back through GM’s statements.

The timeline written by the Tapas Group on the kids book is in his 9 September statement. One of the notes, attached below, specifically asks “? Did he check”. This is right under the 9:10-9:15pm check.

I wonder why this question was asked?

Is it possible he met JW on the way to 5A not on the way from it?

It might be unpopular to say so, but I must admit the idea that GM didn't really carry out the check has crossed my mind too. Specifically, that he intended to the check, got to the gate and saw JW, decided to stop for a chat, and then returned straight to dinner. Either forgetting about the check or just to rush back for the starters.

The one thing that always puts me off this idea, is that a parent would potentially put the investigation at jeopardy by lying that he'd set eyes on MM during the 9.05 check when she might feasibly have already been taken by then. All in order to avoid looking bad. But that scenario can possibly be explained by other events, which I'll come onto. Unlike MO's account (which I find easier to disbelieve), which tells us almost nothing about when someone might have struck, GM's sighting of MM at 9.05 is crucial in establishing the window of opportunity.

As you point out, if we assume GM never entered the apartment, a number of other things start to make more sense. Particularly that if someone was watching the apartment, it makes most sense to enter as soon as the parents had left. And it would certainly explain HCWs apparent "coldness" to the parents if his evidence effectively proves they lied, as well as HCW's comment regarding something only CB could know.

You are correct that in his first statement, GM claimed to have used his key to enter 5A (via the front door) before changing his story in his second statement to say he went through the unlocked patio door. Perhaps it was just stress/confusion but it is strange why he claimed to have gone through the front door initially, particularly when he'd already admitted in his first statement that the patio door was always unlocked and that MO entered 5A using that door:

"At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building. He entered the bedroom, he observed the twins and he did not even notice whether Madeleine was there"

Continuing to describe MO's check in his first statement, he then curiously says this:

"...as everything was calm, the shutters were closed and the door to the bedroom was ajar as usual. "After that Matt returned to the restaurant."
P.J. POLICE FILES: GERRY MCCANN'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007

So, we can deduce at this point in time, GM was under the impression, from whatever conversation (or second hand communication) he had with MO after the event, that MM's door was not open and the shutters were closed! This is important because he is effectively admitting, at this point in time, he was confident that whatever happened to MM, must have taken place after MO's check. Therefore, it might then explain why he felt confident enough to claim seeing MM at 9.05 even though he hadn't. When you consider the initial timeline the Tapas group had put together, it's clear that the detail of MO's check was known about before GM had made any comment about what he actually saw during his check. MO already told GM at dinner that "all was well" in 5A which would have led GM to believe his check at 9.05 was irrelevant anyway, even without the further confirmation he would have presumably sought after the alarm was raised.

Another oddity from GM's first interview, is that he doesn't once mention the door to MM's room being more open that he'd left it. And given that he tells us that when MO did his check "the door was ajar as usual", why on earth wouldn't he have mentioned that the door was not "ajar as usual" when he went in there? That is odd! Alternatively, perhaps he didn't mention it thinking it was irrelevant, confident that it had nothing to do with MM being taken and that she had perhaps opened it. Still, it should have been said if that's what he saw.

In GM's second interview, he has obviously now learned more about MO's account, and specifically of MO's claim that the door was actually open and the shutters may have been up. Only now does GM say that the door was also open upon his check. One of the more intriguing comments from his second interview concerns him clarifying what he'd previously said about MO's check:

"The deponent had had the wrong idea that MATHEW had seen the bedroom external blinds closed when he was there at 21H30, the reason for that was that he thought the disappearance would have been happened between 21h30 and 22h00..."

So, he's effectively saying he just asumed the blinds were closed because he believed (at that time) that MM must have been taken after the 9.30 check based on MO saying that all seemed fine. It then continues:

"...it being that, actually, he is [?] convinced that the abduction occurred in the period understood to be between his visit at 21h05 and MATHEW'S visit at 21H30."
P.J. POLICE FILES: GERRY MCCANN'S STATEMENT 10 MAY 2007

So what he's saying, is that in contrast to his initial thoughts, he's now convinced that the "abduction" must have taken place prior to MO's check and the shutters were in fact open at this point. Which conveniently fits the narrative of Tannerman being the culprit. This is consistent with what @mrjitty was saying about them contaminating each other's accounts. They are tailoring their story to be consistent with what they have learned from other people.

If he had initially lied about setting eyes on MM at 9.05, now would have been the time to come clean. But, if he honestly believed Tannerman was the intruder, and that this sighting was around 10 mins after he claimed to do his check, he might think it not worth risking admitting he lied. Particularly if he could claim the intruder might have already been in the apartment while he was there, hiding behind the door, something he later claimed to have had "a feeling" about.

Again, this is not necessarily my opinion of what actually happened, just pointing out possible options and further inconsistencies in the accounts.

 

[Lilly b]

This reminds that there was probably about a 25 min window ( not just a few minutes as perhaps FF suggested) for the abduction from about 9.35-10pm between MO and KM checks , which fits even assuming Tapas statements reasonably accurate.
Also ties with Panorama programme estimate by our friend Mr.Janosch that abduction took place around 950pm ( which would also match with Smith sighting at about 10pm )
Unless someone has other info that would narrow that 25 min window ?
Abductor could also have been in 5A longer time hiding of course ( perhaps behind sofa or suchlike ) , even when earlier GM and MO checks carried out..imo..

We will never know the exact times, no one wore a watch, no one would think to know the precise times, they where on holiday, and no one new what was about to happen, they are all estimates
The phone call with CB was before 9pm, it finished at 8.02, so doesn't that again make it a planned event, especially with the timeline prev mentioned of all the strange goings on

 

[Lilly b]

Madeleine McCann police tipped-off on 'promising' phone call made to suspect

Again not knowing if this is correct, says the caller recognises the number

 

[Dlk79]

We will never know the exact times, no one wore a watch, no one would think to know the precise times, they where on holiday, and no one new what was about to happen, they are all estimates
The phone call with CB was before 9pm, it finished at 8.02, so doesn't that again make it a planned event, especially with the timeline prev mentioned of all the strange goings on

Agree with what you're saying about the estimation of times but GM did say this in his Arguido interview:

"When asked about the time he went to check the children on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, he states remembering that he did it, according to his watch, around 21:04."
P.J. POLICE FILES: GERRY MCCANN'S ARGUIDO STATEMENT 07 SEP 2007

It's amazing really how much more detail everyone remebered the more time that passed.

 

[tedtink]

We will never know the exact times, no one wore a watch, no one would think to know the precise times, they where on holiday, and no one new what was about to happen, they are all estimates
The phone call with CB was before 9pm, it finished at 8.02, so doesn't that again make it a planned event, especially with the timeline prev mentioned of all the strange goings on

KM's book page 70

"Gerry left to do the first check just before 9.05 by his WATCH"

Which contradicts CM's (official spokesperson) announcement that none of the T9 were wearing watches that night.