Yes, that's what I thought too but I'm a bit confused re the 'Italian lady' as per my query above to
@Niner.
Re corroboration, I guess they must have something else since they clearly haven't tracked down the 2 unknown rape victims in the charge sheet. I did wonder if maybe they'd had a real breakthrough and actually found the two victims but the date range -
sometime between Dec. 28, 2000 to April 8, 2006 - implies otherwise.
BIB
I thought about this a bit more, and offer the following wild speculation.
The first thing to recognise, is the stuff about the teenager and the 70+ elderly woman was known in '18 - and at CBs 2019 rape trial. So it has taken nearly 4 years for him to be charged with those. But he was charged and convicted of the American woman within a year once that cold case was located and forensics matched.
What do we make of that?
Obviously prior to the 2019 trial, that 'video' evidence was untested. But the Court accepted it - at least in so far as the first witness goes. The first witness voluntarily brought the evidence. The second witness only offered it under interrogation in Greece. The first witness also offers the additional testimony of the swimming googles with paint, and whipping. So the Court finds the first witness saw a rape of a different woman, NOT the American victim, but nevertheless finds this relevant to the case against CB for the rape of the American woman, because it was so similar, he could not have made it up.
The critical point here is that first witness divulged this info, causing PJ to looked at the cold cases, finding the American case rather than the victim seen. So the court in fact concluded there must have been two rapes of elderly ladies.
What is then interesting about this is the subsequent HCW cold case investigation has not located the other 3 victims, so unlike in the American and HB cases, we have no forensics or rape kits.
Also the third 'italian' victim has not been charged at all. This suggests to me that the 2nd witness is not regarded as credible enough on that case, or it lacks substantiation. e.g. the FAZ article has no whipping. It might be possible this witness in fact didn't actually see the tape or didn't remember it properly?
So what corroboration does HCW have? I am going to speculate not much
If he had photos, he would have had them at the '19 trial most probably.
But i don't think he needs it. Logically the '19 Court held that Witness 1 must have seen the elderly victim because it lead to solving the American case. Therefore logically he also saw the teenage victim.
That may be all he has IMO. Maybe through in some witnesses for background - e.g access to victims, breaking and entering.
Is this enough? Logically yes based on the '19 findings?
On the other hand, prosecuting 2 no victim cases with no physical evidence seems a stretch to me.
There may be standard of proof issues as well.
In the American case, the video evidence does not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. We also had the hair to get the case over the line. Is the testimony about the video enough for BARD conviction without anything else?
