Category Archives: All posts

Welt am Sonntag – how Springer’s news outlets deliberately misrepresent facts

Correction to report from 26.02.2017

It is now a year ago, almost to the day, that for the 2nd anniversary of the Germanwings crash the “Welt am Sonntag” revisited the topic again in order to “deal with it”, as they  wrote. A three-page article with the headline “Chronicle of an announced catastrophe” appeared on 26.02.17.

Before the appearance of the article, there were repeated attempts by the editors, Dirk Banse and Michael Behrendt, to contact us, attempts which did not cease even after our reply letter explaining that we had no statement to make.

Because their last of several letters, on 18.02.2017, did not provoke a reaction from us, both men appeared on our property on Sunday morning, 19.02.2017, and surprised Günter Lubitz, who coincidentally happened to be present in front of the house. Angered by this personal intrusion, the two were expelled from the property under threat of police intervention.

For reasons of space, we will not include the entire correspondence here, but it can be found under the following link for all to read:

Welt correspondence

In the article it was claimed that we had approached the Welt am Sonntag via correspondence. The reality is that we responded only after the newspaper’s first letter pressing us for information. Our written response was our refusal – namely, that for certain reasons we did not yet want to express our opinion. So, in fact, we did not “contact” the Welt am Sonntag, but rather the newspaper contacted us.

Incidentally, the Welt am Sonntag was not the only medium we responded to in a similar fashion, but in all other cases our refusals were always respected and no other news outlet misrepresented the facts in order to create a news story.

In one of the reporters’ letters to us, they claimed that they possessed a “number of documents” and that they were “investigative journalists” with the unbiased aim of reporting the whole story. However, the published article once again attempted to substantiate a negative image of Andreas. There was no “news”, nor any answers to speculations or lingering questions.

It remains doubtful if the Welt am Sonntag would have offered an objective report had we  indeed consented to share information.

We do not want to split hairs and attempt to weigh every word of every article. But it has certainly been done by others. For example, Franz Josef Wagner in his BILD column, and in the same online portals, wrote: “The Parents (Lubitzes) call it an accident …”, but, in fact, the BEA Final Report itself states: “Accident on 24 March 2015”!

A day later Mike Passmann of the BILD went even further: “Now the parents of Lubitz speak publicly for the first time and report doubts”. (Based on our letter of refusal)

In the same article lawyer Giemulla (victims’ lawyer) comments: “For the survivors of the fatalities, it is a shock to be confronted with alternative facts”. But no “alternative facts” were presented in the article.

Furthermore, at the time of publication our reply letter was almost a quarter of a year old.

Although we had offered nothing, written or spoken, we were again placed in the negative headline spotlight.

This is how Springer journalism works.

L. U.

further bogus press reports:

Maria W. – The ex-girlfriend who never existed

Recent event – the Warm-up for the 3rd Anniversary has begun

Was Andreas Lubitz deep in debt?

Recent event – the Warm-up for the 3rd Anniversary has begun

A new lie from the tabloid press and an open letter from relatives to Lufthansa CEO

The first media harbinger was already to be seen shortly before Christmas, when a victim’s relative complained publicly. This complaint was subsequently legally initiated at the end of January, and since 02.02.2018 the entire mainstream media has meanwhile jumped on the topic. Although we cannot know who of the affected families have so far accepted Lufthansa payments, the latest development is that Lufthansa will allegedly only provide further payments, e.g. for psychotherapeutic treatments (which are normally covered by all health insurances), if, in return, relatives forego ongoing and future lawsuits against Lufthansa.

Just before midnight on 03.02.2018, the usual time that the BILD newspaper posts its latest online news, it suddenly woke up from its month’s-long slumber with a lengthy report.

Nothing new, just old, warmed-up stories: the same as their counterparts in other media outlets, with here and there a bit rewritten and spruced up, with some remarks from relatives.

And so we come to the main point: Almost a year ago, on 21.03.2017, the father of a teacher who died complained to the FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) that Andreas’ parents (us) were stirring everything up again with a news conference and he would be glad if it was all finally over with. But now this same man claims that probably all of Andreas’ colleagues knew about his illness and wondered why he was even allowed into the cockpit. Or were these words put into his mouth? However, this is just as much a BILD lie as was the story of Maria W.

https://andreas-lubitz.com/en/2017/09/04/maria-w-the-ex-girlfriend-who-never-existed/

Regarding this assumption about Andreas’ colleagues, here are the facts:

  1. If Andreas had been continuously ill, he would not have been able to do the training nor be allowed to. Please refer to the article from December 2017.
    https://andreas-lubitz.com/en/2017/12/17/the-reality-behind-andreass-health-problems/
  2. Had a colleague noticed something, he would not have flown with him and would have been obligated to immediately report it to Germanwings.
  3. On the accident flight the captain would certainly not have left the cockpit if he had known about an existing illness, and this must be true about all previous colleagues who left Andreas also alone in the cockpit. Incidentally, the captain leaving the cockpit for a long period of time on both the outbound and return flights is extremely unusual on short-haul flights, yet nobody has questioned this critically.
  4. Without exception, colleagues who flew with Andreas praised his professional skills and found him a very pleasant colleague. Within the company he was considered “one of the good ones”, as colleagues have commented. The questioning of colleagues and the professional evaluations in his personal file are part of the investigation file.
  5. In the official BEA final report of the Germanwings crash (German version) the following statement on the health status of our son was made on page 17:

“None of the pilots and instructors who flew with him in the months prior to the accident and were interviewed during the investigation expressed concerns about his attitude or behavior during flights.”

https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_elyextendttnews/BEA2015-0125.de-LR_04.pdf

Here, therefore, it has again been tried to undermine the picture of Andreas with untruths, which has been going on for three years now. Perhaps only if this picture is maintained can one hope for further payments? It appears to us that this is what it’s all about, as we note that victims’ lawyer Giemulla has recently demanded higher payments from Lufthansa.

There is nothing more to say on this. We conclude by saying that we will not allow ourselves to be provoked by such untruths and will continue to confront them, now and in the future.

L. U.

other bogus press reports:

Maria W. – The ex-girlfriend who never existed

Was Andreas Lubitz deep in debt?

The responsibility of the airlines: Here, Lufthansa-Germanwings-Eurowings

The recurrence of a fume event on a Eurowings flight and how it was handled

Each workplace is subject to certain requirements which are described in the relevant workplace regulations(1). These regulations are intended to ensure the safety and health of workers when setting up and operating in workplaces. In commercial aircraft the cockpit is the pilots’ workplace. Therefore, any airline commercial carriers are responsible for ensuring healthy working conditions. In this Eurowings (formerly Germanwings) case, the responsible carrier is the parent company, Lufthansa. The health of cabin crew personnel – whose workplace is, of course, the aircraft cabin – is also the responsibility of the operating carrier. And we must not forget the passengers in the aircraft.

A news headline dated 09.01.2018 has shocked us again:

“Several injured crew members after fume event on A320 of Eurowings” (successor company of Germanwings).

Although no solutions have yet been implemented to prevent such fume events, the airline’s handling of it is much worse, as the report(2) makes clear. The fume event occurred enroute to London Heathrow , but after landing Eurowings concluded that a simple “airing” of the aircraft by opening the doors was sufficient to make conditions safe, and intended to board passengers for the return to Düsseldorf. However, the collapse of a flight attendant and his hospitalization convinced Eurowings to cancel the flight. Subsequently, pilots flew the aircraft back to Düsseldorf – wearing oxygen masks. A good airing clearly is not enough.

After such an incident, all ventilation ducts must – from the compressor in the engine to the aircraft interior – be disassembled and cleaned, and any engine leaks corrected. For this, an aircraft must be in maintenance for at least two days, as such a problem cannot be remedied on the ground within the standard turnaround time.

Furthermore, the manner in which the BFU (German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation) prefers to ignore such “accidents” leaves much scope for speculation…

In this context, we would like to refer again to the flight log(3) of Andreas, who completed 88% of his flights on machines that have fume events in their histories.

 “These are not all hypochondriacs”

On the other hand, it is gratifying that the aero toxic syndrome is finally being discussed in the medical trade press(4). It would be desirable if all doctors were informed and trained in this subject in order to  understand and treat affected flight crew and passengers in the future.

Always remember: it can happen to anyone.


L.U.

  (1) http://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF-Publikationen/A225-arbeitsstaettenverordnung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

(2) https://www.austrianwings.info/2018/01/mehrere-verletzte-besatzungsmitglieder-nach-fume-event-auf-a320-von-eurowings/

(3) https://andreas-lubitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FLUGBUCH-_ANDREAS-LUBITZ.pdf

(4) https://www.aerztezeitung.de/medizin/fachbereiche/sonstige_fachbereiche/umweltmedizin/article/955837/fume-events-nicht-alles-simulanten.html?sh=1&h=1282090040

 

 

 

Traces of Christmas

Should anyone ask me about Christmas in this world of ours, I would speak about those things that began with the beginning of Christmas.

When one begins at first to trust another, and together build a bridge to overcome hate and enmity, then will you find those traces of Christmas.

When one in the darkness will not remain silent, but rather intones a song of hope to overcome the fear and the silence, then will you find those traces of Christmas.

When one swims against the current and takes up a hard burden to overcome adversity and strife, so you will find the traces of Christmas.

Where one does not quail in the face of hardship, and ventures a new beginning to overcome sorrow and suffering, there can you find the traces of Christmas.

Wherever one dares the difficult, and openly states his opinion to overcome falsity and lies, there also will you find traces of Christmas.

Whenever one wakes from indolence and discovers with you a path to overcome the high walls, then will you find traces of Christmas.

********************************************************************************

With these profound Christmas verses, we wish you a reflective and tranquil Christmastime. Enjoy a bit of peace during these holidays, and find health and happiness in the New Year.

L.U.

The reality behind Andreas’s health problems

Correction of false conclusions – the vision disturbances in 2015 were not recurrence of depression symptoms

For this report we have invested a bit longer time and have studied and evaluated the relevant pages from the investigation files. In the end we came to the conclusion not to judge single medical aspects, because if taken out of context they would justify the opinions of those who believe they know better. In nearly the last three years certain medical specialists have responded to requests for their views and have volunteered their opinions and analyses regarding Andreas Lubitz’s personality, without ever having met him or come to know him. Any good psychiatrist or psychologist knows that “remote diagnosis”, as in this case, followed by evaluation and judgement, requires care, as this can only lead to a subjective conclusion. The BFU, also, has as yet not found it necessary to correct the demonstrably false conclusions which they had previously reported to the French authorities. It is true that in 2008/2009 Andreas experienced an episode of depression. However, it is also true that by the middle of 2009 he had overcome this episode and was perfectly healthy, which was certified several times. What is untrue is that he was ever hospitalized for depression treatment. What is also untrue is that from 2008 to 2015 Andreas was in the continuous care of a psychiatrist and received medication. In July of 2009, after ending medication and thorough examinations by an aviation doctor and a psychiatrist, he was cleared to resume his flight education in September. Furthermore, the medical history form was correctly filled out by Andreas for his medical flight certificate. One just has to read these pages accurately and not intentionally misinterpret their content, which was unscrupulously done by victims’ lawyers who were looking, on behalf of their clients, for the needle in a haystack in order to attach blame to anything or anyone. We were surprised by the number of doctors who Andreas consulted within a seven-year period. It should also be pointed out that during this period Andreas lived in three different locations. Up to 2015, none of the doctors were psychiatrists or psychologists, but were all general practitioners and dentists, orthopedists, ears-nose- throat specialists and ophthalmologists. These last made up the majority of doctor consultations and mainly took place in 2015. We do not know exactly what caused Andreas‘s eye problems, insomnia, etc., and have only our guesses. But we exclude (as we always have) a recurrence of the depression in 2015 because of our experiences in 2008/2009. It is obvious to associate the symptoms Andreas spoke about with his earlier depressive episode, if one has no other explanation. Unfortunately, most doctors (psychiatrists and psychologists included) have no knowledge of the existing problem of “aerotoxic syndrome”, so they are unable to diagnose it after excluding any organic disorder. For most affected people things go badly, also without a medical history. Knowing what we know today – that a certain number of predisposed persons are not able to reduce the toxins, or require a long time for reduction, then consequentially suffer lifelong nerve damage – we would have discouraged Andreas from becoming a pilot, dream job or not. Specific medical examinations of our family members have provided unexpected, but unmistakable, results.

Everyone who flies (including passengers), can become an affected person. In this connection we would like to refer to the following link so that you can make up your own mind. Help for those affected should be different, shouldn‘t it?

https://www.change.org/p/9899447/u/22070243utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_campaign=197729&sfmc_tk=EQofcVA4Ss%2f2Le2JY11OoMElClnho%2b4Ybng9Nv4G%2fWW4Dy13wO6K8v0iM82twciK&j=197729&sfmc_sub=195850815&l=32_HTML&u=36535400&mid=7259882&jb=78

L.U.

Evaluation of Andreas’s flight logbook:

Evaluation of Andreas’s flight logbook

Recent fume event in Eurowings aircraft D-AGWV

Five crew members and one passenger injured

According to a report in Austrian Wings aviation magazine, Eurowings flight 7764 departed Hamburg shortly after 18:00 on 07 November 2017 with Zurich as its destination. The aircraft was an Airbus 319, registration D-AGWV.

Soon after takeoff there occurred an obvious fume event on board, prompting the pilots to immediately return to Hamburg. According to a report in Hamburger Morgenpost, one passenger complained of nausea and respiratory irritation. Together with five crew members the passenger went to a local hospital for medical examination.

Reference links:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4b0badd4&opt=257#

https://www.austrianwings.info/2017/11/verletzte-nach-fume-event-auf-eurowings-flug/

On several occasions in July of 2014 our son flew as copilot in this specific aircraft (Airbus 319, reg. D-AGWV). On 08 July 2016 this aircraft had an official report of a fume event which is documented in the BFU database.

See link below to Andreas’s logbook:

https://andreas-lubitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FLUGBUCH-_ANDREAS-LUBITZ.pdf

Aside from the two mentioned above, it is not known whether any other previous fume events in this aircraft might have occurred or whether Andreas was affected. The noticeable evidence of toxic fumes in an aircraft cabin is a result of a gradual process, rather like the beginning of an oil leak in one’s automobile that does not reveal itself from one day to the next. As already stated in recent news, there was a very high risk for Andreas to belong to the group of people who catabolize the toxins only with difficulty and over time, or not at all. The consequences of which can often be irreversible neurological damage.
Even if there is only one passenger injured, our hope is that this article will encourage people to consider that there are daily incidents involving toxic cabin air and anyone who flies can be affected.

L.U.

matching article:

Evaluation of Andreas’s flight logbook

Evaluation of Andreas’s flight logbook

Conclusion: Germanwings planes old and harmful to health

First of all, many thanks to all who continue to follow Andreas’s website with great interest. Several requests have been made regarding Andreas’s flight logbook in particular, so we would like to explain it in more detail.

At the end of 2013, after successful completion of his pilot training at Lufthansa, Andreas joined Germanwings, a subsidiary of Lufthansa, as a co-pilot. In the meantime, Eurowings (also a Lufthansa subsidiary) has assumed responsibility for Germanwings, whose flight operations continue to be carried out under the Eurowings aegis. However, Germanwings will soon disappear as a brand.

In 2015-2016, the average age of the Germanwings fleet was around 14 years. Of note is that the crashed D-AIPX was almost 25 years old – clearly one of the oldest. In the comparable period, the average age of the Ryanair fleet was 5.4 years.(1)

Aircraft experts are of the opinion that old does not necessarily mean unsafe, and that 24 years is not unusual for an aircraft. However, it is acknowledged that these machines become more vulnerable and more maintenance-intensive with increasing age. But then the tightrope walk begins: more intensive maintenance results in longer downtime; on the other hand, carriers are continuously under pressure to remain profitable, and an aircraft on the ground earns no money.

As part of our expert’s (van Beveren) activities, our son’s flight logbook was reconstructed.(2)

The complete flight logbook can be found at:
https://andreas-lubitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Andreas_Lubitz_pilot_logbook.pdf
A flight logbook indicates the date on which a pilot traveled, on which routes (RTE), and with which aircraft (CALLSIGN and REGISTRY). Also, unusual incidents are recorded in additional columns (REMARKS / RESEARCH RESULTS / EVENT MENTIONED IN MEDIA) and (OFFICIALLY DISPLAYED EVENTS IN AUTHORITY DATABASE).

In the following some explanations:

The analysis of Andreas flight logbook shows that he was mainly deployed on planes that had a high frequency of fume event incidents (3) (88% of his flights). Kerosene (fuel), hydraulic fluid or de-icing fluid become toxic fumes, which result from a defect in the engine, and are passed into the air-conditioning via the bleed air system, and thus into the cockpit and passenger cabin. There are fume events in which there is clearly smoke or a noxious smell, but this is not always the case. If this contaminated air is inhaled by individuals who do not quickly degrade these toxins there can be a profound health impact, including insomnia, vision disorders and damage to the nervous system.

Almost all these symptoms were diagnosed in our son, as well as confirmed by pilots (2016) who remain unfit to fly due to irreversible, neurological damage related to such fume events (of course, passengers are also affected). Not all of them recall experiencing a real fume incident, and it could be that some have become ill as a result of the chronic stress in the execution of their profession.

In order to make a clearer determination, we had our family DNA profiles tested, with the result that there was a very high risk for Andreas to belong to the group of people who catabolize the toxins only with difficulty and over time, or not at all. We were surprised and shocked by these results and their relevance to Andreas, as well as in regards to our own health risks. Several family members have been advised to avoid air travel due to this information. Unfortunately, we did not know until 2016 about the possible occurrence of such toxins in the cockpit and cabin. Most of the doctors we have since talked to have never heard of such fume-related health risks. Therefore, it is not surprising that patients suffering from fume event symptoms often go undiagnosed and sometimes improperly treated. The doctors are not to blame for this lack of knowledge, but that the problem exists is confirmed in the following articles in the trade press (mainstream media unfortunately avoid this topic):

http://www.aerotelegraph.com/easyjet-bekaempft-giftige-daempfe

http://www.aerotelegraph.com/auch-lufthansa-und-co-testen-spezialfilter

It seems that now, slowly and quietly, steps are being taken in the right direction. But this reality clearly affects all who fly and they should give serious thought to this topic.

L.U.

another article:

Moving beyond the truth with twisted facts

 

(1) http://www.focus.de/reisen/flug/airline-sicherheit/airline-datenbank/ryanair_aid_23885.html
(2) https://andreas-lubitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Seiten_252-266-aus-GUTACHTEN-4U9525.pdf
(3) http://www.taz.de/!5409435/

Moving beyond the truth with twisted facts

Victim’s attorney awakens false hopes for high compensation payments for immaterial damage

An experienced lawyer should give his clients good advice. But what lawyer Elmar Giemulla said in the report of 23 September 2017 in the Berlin Morgenpost (among others) does not correspond to the truth and arouses false hopes among the victims’ relatives. For example, in the article Giemulla states, “His (Lubitz’s) training with the flight school in the US state of Arizona could only be completed through special dispensation because of severe depression.” (1)

The fact is that Andreas was treated for depression from November 2008 to April 2009 . After his convalescence, he was invited to return to Lufthansa Flight School in Bremen, Germany, to attend a new course starting on 01 September 2009 to finish his theoretical studies. In July of the same year, his system was clear of medication and Andreas was healthy, both of which were confirmed after careful examination by several specialists.
Only through this process was he able to continue his education at the Lufthansa Flight School in Germany. The BEA final report substantiates this; below see page 16 of the English version: (2)

  • On 1 September 2008, he started his basic training at the Lufthansa Flight Training Pilot School in Bremen (Germany)
  • On 5 November 2008 he suspended his training for medical reasons
  • On 26 August 2009 he restarted his training (note: actual start date was 01 September 2009)
  • On 13 October 2010, he passed his ATPL written exam
  • From 8 November 2010 to 2 March 2011, he continued his training at the Airline Training Centre in Phoenix (Arizona, USA)
  • From 15 June 2011 to 31 December 2013, he was under contract as a flight attendant for Lufthansa while continuing his Air Transport pilot training
  • From 27 September to 23 December 2013, he took and passed his A320 type rating at Lufthansa in Munich (Germany)
  • On 4 December 2013, he joined Germanwings
  • From 27 January 2014 to 21 June 2014, he undertook his operator’s conversion training including his line flying under supervision at Germanwings
  • On 26 June 2014, he passed his proficiency check and was appointed as a co-pilot
  • On 28 October 2014, he passed his operator proficiency check

Also… “During his training and recurrent checks, his professional level was judged to be above standard by his instructors and examiners.”

Thus the assertion that because of severe depression Andreas could only complete his training with special dispensation is completely absurd and out of thin air. The reality is that Andreas never had any special dispensation, though his former depression was noted in his records. Indeed, both Lufthansa and the flight school in Arizona very thoroughly checked Andreas’s health before he resumed his training.

We will address this whole issue further in a coming article.

It is understandable that Mr. Giemulla is now under pressure because the lawsuit (which was based on misrepresentation) was rejected in the US. It can also be assumed that he has studied the crash investigations as well as the BEA final report. Perhaps he should study both carefully again and not suggest to the victims’ relatives the notion of an undiscovered ongoing depression in order to raise their hopes for substantial immaterial compensation.
One should not distort the facts in order to achieve a desired result.

A final note is in order: After the press conference in March we were told that the relatives could not rest because we were again stirring up the whole topic. But it is Giemulla who had nothing more to do than to inform the DPA about his “latest” version of the lawsuit. And there are other examples we could mention which have stirred further unrest.

As mentioned earlier, in the near future we will discuss in detail the medical history of our son, because there is still a lot to clarify.

L. U.

another article:

Germanwings crash 4U9525: Must the negative image of Andreas Lubitz be regenerated?

 

(1) https://www.morgenpost.de/vermischtes/article212019415/Germanwings-Absturz-200-Angehoerige-klagen-gegen-Lufthansa.html

(2) https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_elydbrapports/BEA2015-0125.en-LR.pdf

Germanwings crash 4U9525: Must the negative image of Andreas Lubitz be regenerated?

******************************************************************************
Update from 27 September 2017

Unfortunately, the French video material is now on the Internet. It is a hackneyed advertising film for the partly fictional book by a crazy, fanatical, French reporter. In this video he walks near our house, the Düsseldorf apartment of Andreas, the cemetery, and finally in front of the BEA building in France. There, he finally removes his jacket to reveal the printed words on his T-shirt: “Skydevil”. Yet again base behaviour, for at the beginning of the accident reporting in 2015 it was claimed that Andreas logged on to the Internet under this name, “Skydevil”. This term has NEVER been used by Andreas and is one of the many falsehoods from the BILD newspaper in order to generate a negative picture in a sensational report.

Since the Frenchman in the video is too cowardly to use his real name he is known to us only under his pseudonym. In order not to jeopardize the initiated investigations, we will not name any names here and will not link to the video.

******************************************************************************
We had planned to offer today an article which would review Andreas’s medical history and its public misinterpretation, and this will appear soon. However, an event has recently occurred that takes precedence and we feel it should be reported immediately.

This event occurred on 13 September 2017 in the afternoon at about 4.30 p.m.
Scene of the incident: Residential area, Montabaur.
Three younger men with a film camera and a drone positioned themselves across the road from our home. One of the three proceeded to walk back and forth along the road in front of our residence while being filmed by the other two. After a while they realized we were observing their activities and they quickly decided it was time to leave.

As the men were retreating to their automobiles – two white cars: one a sports convertible with French plates – parked a short distance down the road we telephoned the police but were informed that no squad car was immediately available. We then made the decision to follow them in our own car in order to learn who they were and what they wanted.

We followed them some distance until the men stopped in the parking area of a parsonage. All three got out of their cars and approached ours. We remained inside and spoke to them through a gap in the passenger-side window. One of the men began speaking to us in French, to which we replied, “English, please.” He continued by asking, “What’s your problem?”

Our answer was a question of our own: “Why were you filming our house?“ The man appeared rather excited and demanded to know why we were upset and following them. He claimed that he was only a professor (but of what?) here on vacation with his students (because apparently our residential area is a holiday paradise par excellence!) and they were simply looking for a quiet area… (For what? To make unauthorised films with their drone?)

He also wanted to know what problem there was with our house and asked our names. We didn’t answer these questions, of course, and instead pointed out that it is not allowed to film private homes in residential areas (although it may be perfectly O.K. in France) and we drove away.

In summary:

  1. The French parked their cars on the border of our residential area, as other reporters have done over the last 2 ½ years.
  2. These reporters always position themselves in the driveway of the opposite house and, like the others over the previous 2 ½ years, begin filming our home.
  3. When they were discovered, they were suddenly in a hurry to disappear… like all the other reporters during the last 2 ½ years.

What is new is the attempt to explain their actions, but in a truly ridiculous manner. Now, of course, the question arises: by whom they were sent and what is their purpose?

Looking at the entire media landscape over the last half year, one thing about the Germanwings accident is clear, but very curious: Silence from all sides (except for the desperate petition by a victim’s relative who attempts to promote the fiendish image of Andreas and stir up new anger).

And now the French show up. Regardless of who sent them, we cannot escape the impression that the purpose is, again, to support and refresh the established negative image of Andreas via media reports and films. Enough of this nonsense has already been produced, often spiked with false facts and badly researched or manipulated.

Finally the police came to us, filed a report and gathered evidence.

We will continue to react to incidents of this kind, with or without police assistance.

 

L. U.

another article:

Maria W. – The ex-girlfriend who never existed

Maria W. – The ex-girlfriend who never existed

To fabricate an affair is bad enough, especially if you never knew the person at all. But to do that in the way that the print edition of BILD of March 28, 2015 did lacks any form of decency and served only to ruin the reputation of a man – after he was dead.

According to the BILD:

“He boasted: One day everyone will know my name The stewardess Maria W. (26) was a long-time girlfriend of death-pilot Andreas Lubitz (27). For five months last year they flew throughout Europe and secretly stayed together in hotels. BILD reporter John Puthenpurackal checked their identity. He claims that she produced a photo showing herself with the amok pilot on a flight in the same crew.”*

*Evidence: see boulevard newspaper article on “Links” page, Link 1 to topic

Whether the BILD reporter invented the lady or the lady invented herself is unimportant, because the entire story is fictitious, no matter the source. Andreas’s log book clearly shows which routes he was assigned, and he was required to return to his home airport at the completion of his workday, which would necessarily make it impossible to stay overnight in hotels away from his base. Due to the daily crew changes a flight shared with this specific stewardess could have occurred only exceptionally and randomly. Rather, Andreas always slept at his apartment in Düsseldorf which he shared with his true long-time girlfriend.

The assertions of Maria W. are clearly disproved.

During our witness hearing with the public prosecutor in March 2015 we asked why he had not questioned this Maria W. His reply was that hers was a “fictitious story”. Interestingly, it turned out in March 2017 that the person does exist. Only her story is fictitious …

https://www.buzzfeed.com/petrasorge/dieses-bild-interview-uber-germanwings-pilot-andreas-lubitz?utm_term=.pk8GEJAAN#.peK68Rggn

If the BILD indeed possessed the above-mentioned identifying photograph, it is curious that it did not publish it. Instead, the newspaper printed a photo showing an anonymous woman from behind.

Four days after the crash this invented story provided building blocks to further strengthen the previously generated perception of Andreas Lubitz: emotional outbreaks, threats and the promise of a sensational act. It is strange that if Maria W. was afraid (as claimed in the report), she did not inform anyone but continued to fly with him.

Strange also is the controversy which took place via Twitter in March 2017 between a journalist, Ms Sorge, and the current chairman of the BILD editorial board, Julian Reichelt (who has only been in this position since February 2017), who included the publication of e-mails containing the opinions of the public prosecutor.

http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/twitter-streit-ueber-journalistische-arbeit-bild-gegen-zeit.2907.de.html?dram:article_id=382348

Andreas was committed to the happy relationship with his girlfriend and he was not at all the type to seek affairs. Furthermore, in 2014 he was certainly not in psychiatric treatment, which Maria W. claimed to be the case. We had regular contact with him and he visited us often when he was free. He frequently sent us photographs of his travelling life. He would certainly have told us about a “new” friend.

This BILD article contains not a single grain of truth.

L.U.

 

another bogus press report:

Was Andreas Lubitz deep in debt?