The "number 1 suspect" Christian B

Why did he make that journey, particularly after a long & tiring flight ?
Will supporters be able to come up with a good excuse, or will they try and ignore it, pretending it didn't happen ?

Freedom wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8523449/German-prosecutors-preparing-end-probe-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner.html?ito=push-notification&ci=22975&si=10306854

Well done if you can make any sense of the past few weeks.

For what it's worth, this is my take on it.

The press seem to be posting much speculation based on what is in my opinion routine parts of an investigation. The German L.E. made a mistake in 2013 and tipped off Bruckner into the fact they were investigating the McCann case. He has never been questioned because in Germany you can refuse police questioning. So he simply ignored the request. This also meant he could have destroyed any evidence. Of course the prosecutor wants to wrap up the case now because they took a risk and launched such a public appeal, time is ticking with the world watching. In my view it was a strategy to correct their 2013 mistake. If they appeal for info they can at least argue they did everything they could to investigate Bruckner and to get all the possible evidence although they made initial errors.
I think the German Prosecutor is thinking about his office/ country first and not about solving the Mccann case on behalf of the British or the family. He wants to end something that was started in 2013 and has dragged on too long. When he realised the UK press and the family got very worked up about his announcement she 'was dead'. He tried to clarify by saying 'it's not so important' ( as in to be forensically sure) in Germany. I think he means it's important to investigate the suspicion relating to their particular suspect and conclude the process one way or the other.
Interestingly Bruckner has appealed against his 7 year rape conviction and could be freed tomorrow. It's a technicality as he was extradited for one thing and charged for another. This is also a reason the German prosecutors may have gone out on a limb and did an appeal. To correct another mistake.

patts wrote:

The below is interesting about Kate's dream. It would appear that Kate phoned investigating officer Ricardo Paiva one evening in tears (23 July?) saying she had dreamt that Madeleine was lying on a hill somewhere and they should search there. The officer reports that Kate gave the impression she thought Madeleine was dead and this was a turning point for the investigation.

Gerry was away at the time of the call (in the USA?) It was at this point that police decided to send the specialist dogs in. Kate in her book does not mention calling Ricardo about a dream, however she does write (page 203) that on the evening of Monday 23 July she phoned Richardo 'to ask for his help with a couple of letters I needed to have translated'.  This is important as (snipped from link below):

This allows for a ‘misunderstanding’  and leaves the phone call  in place. Very useful, in case there was a record of such a call from Kate to Paiva that evening/night. Making the subject translation allows for the content of the call to have been misunderstood by Paiva. Very neat.  


Gerry denies that Kate ever had a dream about Madeleine lying buried somewhere.  This appears to be extremely important brain leak from Gerry, as Kate had not mentioned burial to Ricardo - Kate had referred to Madeleine lying on a hill, not buried.


This observation is from Dr. Roberts (McCannfiles.com) 2010:

As reported direct from Lisbon the following day (5.04 p.m.):

'He (GM) also rejected the testimony yesterday that Kate had a dream about Madeleine lying buried somewhere, saying "that never happened..."

Now he would know of course, having not been present when the all-important 'phone call was made.

Subsequent press reports express it thus: "I'd like to make it absolutely clear that Kate has never had a dream that Maddie has been buried somewhere, and I don't know if something's been lost in interpretation, but that didn't happen – not with those words, that's for sure."

So it did happen, except that burial was not mentioned. Indeed not. Inspector Paiva's evidence referred to a description of Madeleine lying on a hill not in one. The latter scenario is a figment of Gerry's own imagination therefore. Now I wonder where he might have got the idea from?
unquote

http://fytton.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-triangle-and-kates-dream.html

Also snipped from link above:

It seems that Kate  had form in contacting Ricardo Paiva late at night: (Gerry isn’t mentioned in this post yet he did not leave for the UK until the 19th):

SUNDAY, JUNE 17: On Sky News tonight they suddenly said the Portuguese police had stated that the crime scene had been contaminated' because of us' and that fundamental evidence had been lost. How dare they insinuate that our daughter's life could be put in danger because of us. Very angry. Very upset.
I want to speak to someone now, but it's too late.
I changed my mind and I sent a text message to Ricardo (Portuguese police family liaison officer). I don't know if was a sensible idea but I feel really annoyed.   [..]I fell asleep after 1am. unquote

I think the above (from Kate's diary?) gives an indication as to Kate's psychological make-up. Apart from the fact that Kate writes in her book that they had allowed people to come in and out of the apartment for 3 hours, the couple by their own admission left all three children alone without a babysitter. They therefore did put the children's lives in danger as leaving three children under 4 alone in a strange place without any means of contacting their parents or another responsible adult is negligent by most people's standards.

Kate has this to say in her book about the evening of 17 June. "All relationships have their ups and downs and our dealings with the PJ, although generally amiable enough, we no exception. On the evening of 17th June, the Portuguese police were quoted on Sky News as having stated that the crime scene at apartment 5A had been contaminated by us and our friends, and that as a consequence vital evidence had been lost. I was livid. First of all it was unfair: the preservation of the crime scene was the responsibility of the police and should have been overseen by an experienced officer. Second, it was inaccurate..........Third, it was incredibly insensitive, implying as it did that we had destroyed evidence that could have helped to find our daughter. And that, especially, hurt badly."

The truth hurts Kate, it would seem. The couple and their friends did allow the crime scene to be contaminated as Kate confirms in her book (page 78): "People had been in and our of the apartment for the last three hours, and until one of the PJ officers stuck a piece of police tape across the doorway of the children's room, it was Gerry who tried to make sure everyone kept clear of it." But he didn't Kate - as you already wrote, people had been in and out for three hours. In actual fact, Kate writes in her book that far from checking the crime scene was not contaminated, Gerry was 'running from pillar to post' and had asked Fiona to stay with Kate in the apartment with the twins.

Gerry or indeed any of the nine adults present in the party could have had the presence of mind to preserve the crime scene, particularly when you consider many of the adults were doctors and would have known the importance of forensics. It is also beyond extraordinary, given what Kate writes in her book about the possibility of Madeleine and the  twins having been given some kind of sedative, that not one member of the group insisted on the twins being woken and sensitively examined and questioned. Kate writes how she placed her palms on their back to check for chest movements, 'basically, some signs of life'.  Uh??

The above is extraordinarily reminiscent, imo, of Matt's alleged 9.30pm when he claims he saw the twins chests rising and falling - ie: he saw them breathing, but claims he did not see Madeleine's bed from where he was standing. This is simply too much brain-leak to ignore the very clear indication, imo, that by 9.30pm (actually 9pm when Gerry allegedly admired Madeleine sleeping) the twins are breathing but Madeleine isn't.  I think there is also a quote from Fiona/Jane about how the twins were sleeping very soundly and what Kate did to check they were okay.

One thing about narcissists is that if you call them out on their bad behaviour they go absolutely ballistic. It's fascinating.

http://fytton.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-triangle-and-kates-dream.html

These latest photos of the suspect must surely answer the description as given by neighbour Mrs Fenn's niece who saw a Scandinavian-looking man acting suspiciously as he let himself of a garden gate near apartment 5A on Thursday afternoon.? The suspect could not look more Scandinavian in those photos - a million miles away in appearance than the e-fit of this man given in Kate's book which shows a very dark man of almost North African appearance.

Why would Kate alter the description of the man seen by Mrs Fenn's niece so drastically?



https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pictures-prove-portuguese-police-knew-22378521

Police reopen probe into rape of woman who claims Madeleine suspect attacked her

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-police-reopen-probe-rape-22396304#ICID=Android_TMNewsApp_AppShare

dogs don't lie wrote:Police reopen probe into rape of woman who claims Madeleine suspect attacked her

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-police-reopen-probe-rape-22396304#ICID=Android_TMNewsApp_AppShare

This whole thing has more twists and turns than a roller-coaster. And even if Brueckner was involved, it's too late to charge him.

If police do find evidence against Christian Brueckner for Ms Behan's attack it is unlikely he would be charged as Portugal has a 15-year statute of limitations on rape investigations.

I've been told that there is a programme on tonight at 21.00 on Virgin 1 and Ulster TV called Madeleine McCann - the hunt for the prime suspect.

The blurb asks why it has taken so long to arrest the prime suspect Christian B; we can't expect much in the way of accuracy since he hasn't been arrested in condition with Madeleine.

I hope to watch - presenter is Julie Etchingham. She did a programme reviewing the Jill Dando case which I did not see.

Yes I saw that programme and posted this a year ago. The programme is no longer available.

"A programme from last night which sounds more interesting than the BBC one.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/tv/jill-dando-20-year-mystery-review-this-film-revived-hope-of-finding-her-killer/ar-BBWimp7?li=AAnZ9Ug&ocid=mailsignout

Today is the 20th anniversary.

https://www.itv.com/hub/jill-dando-the-20-year-mystery/2a6228a0001

P.S. I'm watching it now. It's a bit eerie because the presenter - Julie Etchingham whom I've not heard of before - sounds a lot like Jill!"

Here's a link to the programme. If anyone has seen it, could they give me an idea on whether it's safe to watch without my blood pressure going through the roof?

https://www.itv.com/hub/madeleine-mccann-the-hunt-for-the-prime-suspect/10a0436a0001

P.S. I've now watched to the first advert break and can take no more! It's absolutely dreadful. Goodness knows how Sandra F (she of the famous "ask the dogs" interview) has now fallen for this nonsense hook, line and sinker.

There was also a woman who was in the playground when Christian B was arrested for indecent behaviour - of no relevance whatever to the McCann case.

I've looked at the ITV Madeleine McCann documentary - 23rd July 2020 over the way because I wasn't able to open the links above (if they are indeed of the same programme).  I think in general it is quite positive. It is highly likely, imo, that the McCanns and their friends would have needed help, if Detective Amaral is correct and Madeleine died that week and they hid her body and faked an abduction.

I think the suspect answers the description of the man seen by neighbour Mrs Fenn's niece, letting himself out of a patio gate near apartment 5A between 3pm and 5pm on the Thursday afternoon. The suspect was described as having a very distinct appearance and looking Scandinavian which I think is a good description of Brueckner. It would be interesting to find out what the suspect's haircut was like in May 2007 because Carol Tranmer (Mrs Fenn's niece) describes his hair as very blond and close cropped. In contrast to the 'ugly/pimply' suspects that the McCanns gave much weight to I would say Brueckner is very far from this description.

It is relevant, imo, that Kate in her book includes an e-fit of the Carol Tranmer sighting (which I think she morphs with the Jensen sisters' sighting) and the man that Kate has included in her book is very dark of almost North African appearance. Why did Kate not allow for an e-fit that was an accurate description as given by Carol Tranmer and indeed the Jensen sisters? Why allow the e-fit to be so inaccurate as to be deceptive?  It would be interesting to corroborate these two sightings (Carol Tranmer and the Jensen sisters) to find out if the Jensen sisters' sighting of the two blond men on the balcony of empty apartment 5C included a description of a man looking like Brueckner? The Jensen sisters sighting was at a similar time to Carol Tranmer's, I do believe, so the sightings could indicate that a blond man (potentially Brueckner?) entered an apartment (and was seen standing on the veranda) and then was seen letting himself out of a patio gate nearby looking suspicious. Significantly, imo, there are no e-fits of blond men in Kate's book.

Gerry, Kate and the Tapas adults all have alibis for Thursday afternoon and they are away from the apartments during the time of these sightings (eg: from around 3pm to 5pm, and even longer I think it is claimed). I think this is important to the narrative. If, say, the latest suspect had some role to play in Madeleine's disappearance, then this might be the time that Madeleine or her body was removed from the apartments with the help of a third party or third parties. If this had been the case, then I think this period of time would be very sensitive, which is why the group might have deviated from their routine and gone to the beach with their children that day.

Why didn't they stick to the routine as this deviation from the McCanns looked suspicious? I think they had little choice. They didn't want to be associated with what might have been happening during that time in or around apartment 5A. Gerry is playing tennis during this time and so would have had an alibi. Kate is allegedly jogging on the beach although I think she is captured on the cctv camera at the beach restaurant, crouching down to avoid being on camera.

The cctv footage of Paraiso beach restaurant is very important, imo, because it provides evidence that the group were at the beach. I wonder if they had to change their version of events when they realize that they had been captured on cctv? We see what looks like Kate crouching down, as stated above, and we see Fiona staring fixedly at the cctv camera, presumably having warned Kate who then crouches out of view?

Perhaps the group were going to pretend that they were all there including Madeleine but had to retract this when they knew there was no evidence of Madeleine being at the beach from the cctv footage?   I do believe Sean wanders over to the TM table at some stage, as we see the back of a small blond boy's head. Who else would this be if not Sean?

The point being, it is suspicious that the McCanns deviate from the routine of their friends on this particular day and there is no good excuse for this and for separating Madeleine and the twins from their friends and the group, but there were more pressing things to worry about,  imo. Like not being seen in the vicinity of any of the TM apartments that afternoon.  This could be because this was when Madeleine was being taken away somewhere and alibis were needed. Kate in her book writes that the group were away from their apartments that afternoon.

At the 38.46 point of the video, the German police prosecutor says that they need to know who the suspect was talking to when he was on his mobile near Ocean Club on that Thursday evening at around 9pm.  Just suppose, if Detective Amaral's theory is correct about Madeleine having died and the parents hiding her body, that the suspect had been in contact with one of the members of TM or one of their friends. As is pointed out in the video by another commentator, it would be difficult to get the person that the suspect was in contact with to contact police as he or she could become an accomplice to a murder which carries a considerable sentence.

We know from police statements that all sorts of people claim to have been near apartment 5A at around 9pm that Thursday evening. Gerry had apparently just checked on a sleeping Madeleine. Jez Wilkins pushing his child's pram around apparently bumps into Gerry as Gerry is leaving apartment 5A having checked on Madeleine. Jane Tanner has also done a check on her children and sees both Gerry and Jez talking. She also claims to have seen 'Tanner-man' - allegedly Madeleine's 'abductor' whisking her away by foot.

We now have Brueckner joining this melee near apartment 5A at almost exactly the same time. German police state he was on his mobile to an unknown person on an unknown mobile. Yet another person in a crucial time and in a crucial place that fateful evening. Brueckner has a long history of criminal activity going back to when he was young. If you are going to claim that your child was abducted by a paedophile, he might be a handy person to have hanging around and he might even be someone that would help - for a fee. And of course he might be a convenient patsy.

I think all of this lends huge credence to the theory that the motive for the abduction of Madeleine was, at least in part, paedophilia, which is of course what the parents and their friends claimed. This in no way rules out the McCanns and their friends as having some involvement, imo. On the contrary, I think the group in their behaviour and in their statements give many  indications that they knew Madeleine was dead by the time of the alleged abduction.

A commentator in the video states that a huge stash of child pornography was found by police at one of Brueckner's addresses.  In the context of this discovery, I cannot help but think about the Gaspar statements and particularly that of Dr Katharina Gaspar who accompanied the McCanns, the Paynes and others on a family holiday in Majorca in 2005. Once she knew that David Payne was on the holiday when Madeleine disappeared, she contacted police.

We then have the very peculiar Nigel from Southampton encounter on the Thursday morning around the tennis courts,  but only one side of the story - that of the McCanns and their friends.  Kate writes about this in her book and Russell is questioned at length about it and goes on, and on, and on. It is as if the questioner is handing out the rope and Russell is obligingly using it.

Why are members of the TM group hanging around near the play area and looking over at the mini-tennis courts when their own children are not playing mini-tennis that day, it would seem? Kate in her book claims  she 'found' Russell there but gives no indication as to what he was doing or why he was there? The account given as to what Nigel said to the group, both by Kate and by Russell, is, imo, verging on defamation. We do not have Nigel's version of events so we have to take their word for it. But what kind of father tells strangers that filming his young daughter playing mini-tennis makes him feel like 'a dirty old man'? Really weird - but of course this is Kate and Russell's version of events, not Nigel's. Apparently, neither Kate nor Russell find anything strange in what they allege Nigel said - did they put words in his mouth I wonder.? Extensive police questioning of this with Russell indicates that the police found the TM version of this encounter of great interest.

How many more red flags do there have to be around in this case?

All theoretical as always.


https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13407p925-video-of-the-day

Thanks, I'll study your reply in detail later. It has to be the same programme. I wonder why my link doesn't work for you - you are in the U K I think.

I watched this all the way through on Virgin 1. I have tried to make my notes coherent – not always clear what I meant! CB = Christian the evil German.

I was put off at an early stage as the Portuguese journalist Sandra who was quoted throughout has clearly changed her mind. She appeared to blame the Portuguese police for the contaminated crime scene – not pointing out that this group of (mainly) doctors should have known better than to be running around the apartment looking for Madeleine and messing up what forensics there might have been had there been an abduction. Given that Kate had told them Madeleine was not there, they should have called the police immediately and not have gone into the apartment.

There followed an incident in Portugal in 2017 in which a man exposed himself to a child, the police were called and he was arrested. This was the German.

Then back to an abandoned factory in Germany in 2016 owned by CB. Found dead dog, flash drives containing expensive pornography.

EU arrest warrant out for CB (not clear from my notes if this warrant relates to the 2016 find.

Then family background. Adopted. In 1993 aged 17 abused a child – got 2-years in child institute, escaped and on the run. Caught later.

Moved to PDL area. Stopped in 2004 by police for driving offence.

Caught 2006 for stealing diesel. Judge asked him about his past record and he admitted to the sex crime in 1993, Given 8 months detention for the theft. Emphasised that his sex record now known to Portuguese police before madeleine vanished.

Campervan life from 2007. Witness claimed (not on camera) that CB said to him you could hide drugs and a child inside. Very large camper van on screen – you could certainly get a lot inside.

Dots not joined up in 2007 = blaming police. McCanns lobbied all and sundry but did not get co-operation.

Former Policeman Graham Hill said Operation Grange set up 2011 a positive move.

2013 McCann’s again appeal for information. Tip comes in. German Police call to CB. No action taken.

2017 a chat in a bar is overheard – reported to police and witness names CB. Germans investigate.
CB raped a woman in Portugal in 2005 Germans became aware of this in 2018

Mobile phone date emphasised – phone mask by Ocean Club. Theory put forward that the abduction was not planned – CB hanging around for burglary opportunity – breaks in and sees 3 children and takes Madeline (Now if this was opportune, how did he drug Madeleine to keep her quiet while he carried her through the (allegedly) open window and then carry her (without being seen by anybody to his home in the campervan. If this was opportunistic, he would not have had the campervan outside. You don’t need a campervan if you are looking to steal cameras, cash mobile phones etc.

Reference to the dreadful cost to date £12 million without reference needless to say to McCann’s lack of co-operation.

Amaral gets one minute to say CB on a long list of possible suspects.

Unspoken criticism of Portuguese police – was the cell phone list examined properly. If police had interviewed CB at the time they could have asked for his mobile no and then located it on the phone data list putting him in the immediate area.

Cressida Dick Interview with Julie Etchingham who said she was non-committal. Dick said name of CB came to UK police in 2017, but they had it prior to that yea and he became suspect after phone info came to light.

Summary at end of film

CB lawyer says can’t be solved without a body/a witness or a confession. Client innocent. His rape conviction being appealed (on a legal technicality).

Hill says no such thing as a perfect investigation. What can we learn from this? If another child goes missing, would we do things differently?

Sandra says – the fault was ours(ie Portuguese police) – didn’t do a proper job at the time.

I would have found a table with a timeline showing where he was, what he was doing and when the various bits of info came in, very helpful.

I think from the sound of it, anyone who knows only the official story will probably agree that Christian B is the likely culprit.

It seems to me that a narrative is being carefully constructed, based on very little fact and a lot of conjecture. Perhaps the facts will emerge later.

:rol

l: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-witness-claims-madeleine-mccann-22412799#ICID=Android_TMNewsApp_AppShare

3/4 years later, aye right.

Freedom wrote:I think from the sound of it, anyone who knows only the official story will probably agree that Christian B is the likely culprit.

Agreed. He would be a very convenient patsy and ticks nearly all the boxes.

However, we KNOW that Detective Amaral believes that Madeleine died and that the parents hid her body and faked an abduction. This puts Kate and Gerry firmly in the frame, irrespective of how Madeleine died or even at whose hands. Innocent parents would hardly be so helpful to a paedophile child killer as to hide her body after all!

German police seem to be clear that Madeleine is not only dead but that she was killed. It is also reported that they know how she died. This is a very bold claim indeed. How can they know this with any certainty? I presume that one way would be that someone who knows the killer/s well has given information? Without a body or a confession, how can they know?

I think we have seen so much to suggest  that Kate, Gerry and their friends and family are hugely deceptive. Kate's book is a classic, in its own way. Both Kate and Gerry's diaries are interesting exhibits and the media interviews really are richly revealing, imo.

I think TM like to pull other people into their web and I think they like other people to do their dirty work. We know they like to blame others rather than look in the mirror at themselves. I don't believe that the German police would have pointed the finger at Brueckner if he had had absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance. The fact that his mobile was in use so close to Ocean Club at such a crucial time does place him near the scene at a critical time. Another coincidence? There are so many in this case!

ETA: Is it too far-fetched to suggest that Brueckner may have been 'tipped off' - either about apartments to burgle as they had been left unlocked or children to molest as their parents had left them unattended? Kate in her book makes much of the written explanation in the Tapas restaurant bookings sheet that was left at reception for all to see and which explained that the parents had made a block booking for the week at the Tapas because it was near their apartments where they were leaving the children as they ate. Clearly, this adds weight to the idea that a potential abductor may have been casing the joint and finding out about the McCanns' routine so he or she could pounce at an opportune moment.

The whole Brueckner thing just seems to add yet another layer of complication to the story but at least we now have two police forces who are saying Madeleine is dead and one police force saying she was murdered.

Madeleine McCann police search allotment near where suspect Christian B lived

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-madeleine-mccann-police-raid-22428225#ICID=Android_TMNewsApp_AppShare

What are police looking for? I can't believe it would be Madeleine's body, surely? Not in that particular location.

I think *devout Catholics* (ahem!) like Kate and Gerry would have wanted to chose a site that would be suitable for a  farewell that was 'socially acceptable' because they care about appearances, imo.

On the other hand, we do have Detective Amaral's belief that a body was carried in the boot of the car that the McCanns hired three weeks after the alleged abduction. If this is correct, where was this body carried to, I wonder? One can only presume that it was carried to a place that would lead to an eventual site of burial/scattering of ashes/remembrance?
(And again, I think Detective Amaral is quoted as saying that the body might have been placed in another person's coffin for cremation. If this was the case, where did the ashes go?)

 I suppose it is possible that the suspect took away some evidence, perhaps for a fee, to get rid of far away from the crime scene?

Or what?

I don't believe it's all complete nonsense. I think there must be something that links Brueckner with the disappearance. But what?

A mention of Josef Fritzl to add to the mix.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8571451/Madeleine-McCann-investigators-resume-digging-German-allotment.html?ito=push-notification&ci=25444&si=10306854