Germany/Portugal - Christian Brueckner, 27 @ time of 1st crime (2004), charged with sexual assault crimes, Praia de Rocha, Portugal. #2

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fair point.

You may recall that FF stated in the media that because the prosecution were certain that the DM and HaB crimes were committed by the same person and the birthmark was important evidence in HaB case, there should be a retrial in the DM case - due to the fact his client has no mark.

I don’t think he would say this if untrue.

I'm not quite clear what FF means here? This distinguishing mark - let's call it a mole for convenience sake since it's easier and more common to remove a mole than a birthmark - didn't feature in the DM case, did it? In the DM case, she was blindfolded so wouldn't have seen any moles. I don't think we've ever had any record of her testimony on here but I'm quite sure if it featured this mole, then we'd have heard about it by now. How would a mole/removed mole outcome in the HaB case affect the DM case since no mole featured in the DM case?

I'm confused.
 
Last edited:
re. recent discussion , this Pressreader article has some info ..

“Brueckner who has a pockmarked face, pierced ears, a five-inch scar on his lower back, an eight-inch scar on his right arm, birthmarks all over his body and hands’, including chewed fingernails. It even details a distinctive scar on his groin.”


There’s also a Telegraph article from 2020 mentioning this kind of info , but is "sign-in to read" , although can view it briefly before it times-out …

That Press Reader article is again confusing/conflating the two elderly women rapes. The alleged footage seen by the two witnesses was not of DM, it was of the unknown woman on the current charge sheet. There was no video footage of DM's attack/rape.

I know that wasn't the point of your posting it but just correcting misinformation.
 
I'm not quite clear what FF means here? This distinguishing mark - let's call it a mole for convenience sake since it's easier and more common to remove a mole than a birthmark - didn't feature in the DM case, did it? In the DM case, she was blindfolded so wouldn't have seen any moles. I don't think we've ever had any record of her testimony on here but I'm quite sure if it featured this mole, then we'd have heard about it by now. How would a mole/removed mole outcome in the HaB case affect the DM case since no mole featured in the DM case?

I'm confused.
FF wasn't CB's lawyer at the time of DM case, but he's likely to have seen her testimony and compared it to the HaB testimony and maybe the descriptions don't tally each other.We'll see or rather hear HaBs testimony but I don't think she saw her attackers face, only his piercing blue eyes, so only the body description comes into play, that's how I see it, all opinion.
 
That Press Reader article is again confusing/conflating the two elderly women rapes. The alleged footage seen by the two witnesses was not of DM, it was of the unknown woman on the current charge sheet. There was no video footage of DM's attack/rape.

I know that wasn't the point of your posting it but just correcting misinformation.
His lawyer, Friedrich Fülscher, 38, said: “If it turns out to be true that Mr Brueckner does not have this characteristic, he would have to be excluded as the perpetrator.”

Not the best source but it covers it.

 
@Anxala more in this source. I think FF will push this point in the HaB trial.

To try and clarify, the prosecutors are saying that the same offender committed both the DM rape and the HaB rape - they are certain of this. The offender in the HaB case is said to have a large distinguishing mark on his leg. CB doesn’t have such a mark ipso facto, he cannot be responsible for either crime

This is a direct quote “Part of the evidence in the case of the rape [of the 20-year-old woman] is that the attacker had a large tattoo or birthmark on his leg and the prosecution knows full well my client has neither.”

He claims evidence in the new cases being investigated prove Brueckner could not have raped the pensioner as German authorities say that attack and the one on Behan were carried out by the same tattooed man.

But Mr Fulscher has pointed out his client has no tattoos and so therefore could not have carried out the rapes although he told MailOnline he was not hopefully of his appeal being granted.
 
Last edited:
@Anxala more in this source. I think FF will push this point in the HaB trial.

To try and clarify, the prosecutors are saying that the same offender committed both the DM rape and the HaB rape - they are certain of this. The offender in the HaB case is said to have a large distinguishing mark on his leg. CB doesn’t have such a mark ipso facto, he cannot be responsible for either crime

This is a direct quote “Part of the evidence in the case of the rape [of the 20-year-old woman] is that the attacker had a large tattoo or birthmark on his leg and the prosecution knows full well my client has neither.”

He claims evidence in the new cases being investigated prove Brueckner could not have raped the pensioner as German authorities say that attack and the one on Behan were carried out by the same tattooed man.

But Mr Fulscher has pointed out his client has no tattoos and so therefore could not have carried out the rapes although he told MailOnline he was not hopefully of his appeal being granted.

I don't think you can re-open the prior conviction in this way. You'd need a new piece if information that proved CB could not be guilty in the prior case. It could simply be that HaB is wrong about her evidence for example.
 
I don't think you can re-open the prior conviction in this way. You'd need a new piece if information that proved CB could not be guilty in the prior case. It could simply be that HaB is wrong about her evidence for example.
Yes, I understand… FF says as much in the article.

If you follow the prior post you’ll see my point was that it’s unlikely CB has such a mark given FF’s comments here.
 
Yes, I understand… FF says as much in the article.

If you follow the prior post you’ll see my point was that it’s unlikely CB has such a mark given FF’s comments here.

I'm just going to wait for the trial evidence. Most of these discussions will turn out to be a waste of time - it's the same on most cases, but especially one where we are relying on the Mail
 
I'm just going to wait for the trial evidence. Most of these discussions will turn out to be a waste of time - it's the same on most cases, but especially one where we are relying on the Mail
I hear you. However, given the below is a direct quote from FF, I’ll be surprised if any mark is used by the prosecution in the HaB case.

Part of the evidence in the case of the rape [of the 20-year-old woman] is that the attacker had a large tattoo or birthmark on his leg and the prosecution knows full well my client has neither.”
 

I hear you. However, given the below is a direct quote from FF, I’ll be surprised if any mark is used by the prosecution in the HaB case.

Part of the evidence in the case of the rape [of the 20-year-old woman] is that the attacker had a large tattoo or birthmark on his leg and the prosecution knows full well my client has neither.”
CB was going to be examined in jail.Didn't lead to no charge though.

Madeleine McCann suspect 'agrees to have thighs examined' in bid to escape rape charge


 
CB was going to be examined in jail.Didn't lead to no charge though.

Madeleine McCann suspect 'agrees to have thighs examined' in bid to escape rape charge


The appearance of his thighs now is not necessarily reflective of them in 2004 - rather like his teeth.
FF may not have realised BKA had done their research super-thoroughly.
 
CB was going to be examined in jail.Didn't lead to no charge though.

Madeleine McCann suspect 'agrees to have thighs examined' in bid to escape rape charge


Could just mean that they think the have enough with the DM MO and HaB’s statement.

Let’s hope HaB get’s justice.
 
The appearance of his thighs now is not necessarily reflective of them in 2004 - rather like his teeth.
FF may not have realised BKA had done their research super-thoroughly.
Just as the prosecution have done their due diligence in gathering the evidence then the defence will equally have done so, the onus is on the prosecution to prove BARD.What ever has been reported in the press means diddly squat in all reality, the evidence or maybe lack of presented will win out.
 
Just as the prosecution have done their due diligence in gathering the evidence then the defence will equally have done so, the onus is on the prosecution to prove BARD.What ever has been reported in the press means diddly squat in all reality, the evidence or maybe lack of presented will win out.
I agree. I think FF has been both careful and strategic in his media comments.

I can’t see any “the hair was carried by a cat” defence strategies this time around.

And, in these cases, I don’t think they will have the silver bullet DNA evidence. This means the arguments by defence and prosecution will be more important.

I’m looking forward to hearing what happens. Does it start again tomorrow?
 
Friday, February 23rd:
*Trial continues (Day 2) (@ 9am CET) – Germany/Portugal - Hazel Behan (20 @ time/now 40) (in her home, June 16, 2004, Praia de Rocha on the Algarve coast, 10 miles from Praia de Luz, Portimao, Portugal) - *Christian Stefan Brückner (Bruekner) (27 @ time of 1st crime (2004)/45/now 47) charged (Oct. 11, 2022) with sexual assault (suspect held a knife & brutally raped her. The accused then tied & gagged the woman to a table & raped her again. He then whipped the victim on the back with a whip he had brought with him & finally forcibly performed oral sex with the victim. The accused filmed large parts of the events with a video camera he had brought with him). Braunschweig Regional District Court
Germany/Portugal – *Charged (Oct. 11, 2022) & arrest warrant reinstated 11/18/22 - a 14 year old teenager (assaulted/hit the naked girl with a whip. Said to have brutally forced the girl to have oral sex. The accused also videotaped this act). Took place between Dec. 28, 2000 to April 8, 2006 on the Praia da Luz, Algarve coast, Portugal.
Germany/Portugal - *Charged (Oct. 11, 2022) & arrest warrant reinstated 11/18/22 - an elderly woman 70-80 yrs old (tied up & raped the victim in her holiday apt. He then hit the victim several times with a whip. The accused is said to have recorded the entire event with a video camera). Took place around the same time (between Dec. 28, 2000 to April 8, 2006) on the Praia de Luz, Algarve coast, Portugal.
Germany/Portugal – *Charged (Oct. 11, 2022) & arrest warrant reinstated 11/18/22 - 10 year old German girl (Joana.E) (wearing only shoes & otherwise naked. He grabbed the child's wrist & began to perform masturbation movements on his naked penis). On Salema (Zalema) beach, near Praia de Luz, Portugal, April 7, 2007).
Germany/Portugal – *Charged (Oct. 11, 2022) & arrest warrant reinstated 11/18/22 - 11 year old Portuguese girl (pulled down his trousers & underpants & made masturbation movements on his naked penis in order to sexually arouse himself, until the frightened girl ran to her father for help. The suspect was arrested on the spot by the Portuguese police). Exposed himself in playpark, São Bartolomeu de Messines, June 11, 2017).
Trial began on February 16, 2024.
Trial dates: Feb. 23, March 1, March 14, April 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 19, 24, 25, May 2, 3 8, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, June 4, 5 6, 25, 26 & June 27, 2024. Expected to last up to 3 months.
Defense attorneys Dr. Sebastian Fuelscher, Philipp Marquort, Dennis Bock & Atilla Aykac.
Brueckner is currently serving a 7 year sentence for the 2005 rape on a pensioner. While he is still the main suspect in Madeleine case, these above cases will be tried first & he will be charged with Madeleine later (maybe!)
Oct. 11, 2022 Update: Specifically, the accused is charged with three acts of serious rape & two acts of sexual abuse of children, specifically:

Case info & charges & Brueckner info from June 1, 2020 thru December 13, 2023 reference post #217 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...imes-praia-de-rocha-portugal-2.704227/page-11

Jan. 18, 2024 Update: More than 40 witnesses have been called in to testify, including up to half a dozen ex-lovers of Brueckner & a string of old acquaintances & friends. The last scheduled witness is a specialist in forensic psychology, Dr Christian Riedemann, who will take to the stand on June 27, 2024.
Feb. 16, 2024 Trial Day 1: The trial of Brueckner was halted almost before it had even begun this morning after the judge adjourned the court following the defence team's successful attempt to discredit a lay judge. The trial got off to an explosive start when his lawyer, Dr. Sebastian Fuelscher, began proceedings by immediately attempting to discredit one of the lay judges - Ms. Britta Thielen-Donckel - revealing she had repeatedly called for the assassination of the Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro on social media. Lay judges collaborate with regular judges in trials, participating in deliberations & assisting in rendering verdicts & deciding sentences. The judge adjourned the court after just nine minutes to consider the request, before returning 40 minutes later & duly removed Ms. Thielen-Donckel from the panel, scoring an early win for Brueckner's defence team. Court was immediately adjourned until next Friday, 2/23/24 as authorities search for a replacement lay judge, with Brueckner returned to his cell. Trial continues on Friday, Feb. 23, 2024.
 
I know but as the day progresses, it presumably will focus more on the trial. I'm sure they'll be better reporting out there later in the day from other sources, I just stuck that Mirror link up as it was a choice between it or the DM (with Nick Pisa!).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
130
Guests online
2,098
Total visitors
2,228

Forum statistics

Threads
605,375
Messages
18,186,312
Members
233,338
Latest member
adr5879
Back
Top