Category Archives: Bogus press reports

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?

 

Was Andreas Lubitz deep in debt?

“War Lubitz hoch verschuldet?” – Bait for the reader – a new headline of the biggest German boulevard newspaper on 10 July 2015

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

In this article the public was presented another “missing piece of the puzzle” regarding the possible motive for the crash, but this purely speculative question of debt is yet another personal attack with the aim of denigrating Andreas Lubitz: an attempt to reveal a “dark side” of the pilot and further promote a negative image already established in the public consciousness. With no background knowledge, the author of the article speculates about the repayment of training costs and other possible creditors.

Yes, it is true that “estate insolvency proceedings” were initiated and carried out. However, this is common procedure when there are special circumstances, as was the case here, and these proceedings have been concluded. After deductions of various expenses, a five-digit amount remained from Lubitz’s estate. This was distributed among the creditors according to priority and paid accordingly.

This clearly shows that Andreas was not heavily indebted prior to the crash, otherwise the creditors would have received nothing. So debts would not have been a motivating factor.

In connection with this topic, a relevant report appeared on 10 September 2015, exactly two months after the publication of the above-mentioned article and six months after the crash:

Allianz demands 7.5 million euros from Lubitz insolvency administrators

Evidence: see boulevard newspaper article on “Links” page, Link 2 to topic

Quote: “According to BILD information, Allianz’s industrial insurance division reported a claim of up to 7.5 million euros from pilot Andreas Lubitz († 27).”

In fact, the sum demanded was lower, showing that the author’s report was purely speculative.

But what is the public more likely to remember: “up to”? or “7.5 million”?