It has to be established that the MO is the same. I don’t think it has been.
Not yet and yesterdays Braunschweig News article is no longer there, will keep you posted.Any news from the court for today? TIA!![]()
Not yet and yesterdays Braunschweig News article is no longer there, will keep you posted.
When a serious sexual offence is committed by an unknown assailant investigative solutions must be next to impossible. For example a DNA database was unavailable in Portugal early 2000’s.Two different offenders may have almost identical modus operandi.
More words do not make a good argument. Most of these points lack objectivity.Recent post from @Mex
That is your opinion to which you are entitled. Mine is that it is obvious that the MO of the 2004 and 2005 rapes are almost identical including the signature of
If nothing else it must be highly unusual for a rapist to carry filming equipment with him to his intended crime scene and set it up as was done in both the 2004 and 2005 rapes.
- illegal home invasion
- coming prepared with his rape kit
- creeping up on the women one while sleeping the other working on her computer
- binding of the women
- terrorising the women
- stealing from the women
- going out of his way to humiliate the women
- hurting the women physically and mentally one carrying scars behind her knees for life; the other having suffered broken bones during the attack. Both women battered and bruised and physically tortured
- fetish and bizarre dressing up fixation of the perpetrator
- cowardly beating up and threatening behaviour towards both women using a bladed object
- subjecting both women to sexual invasion of the worst and most degrading kind; the younger one raped repeatedly and tortured over a period of appx four hours, the older one for appx a third of that timescale
- the rapes of both women were filmed from start to finish using a camera carried in and set up by the rapist
The comparison I made concerned a brutal rape which was perpetrated in 2005 and a similarly brutal rape which was perpetrated in 2004.More words do not make a good argument. Most of these points lack objectivity.
For example: “Illegal home invasion”. Either a person will be raped in their home or not. This is not part of a specific MO. Additionally, we know that one of the rapes CB has been charged with was committed in his home. It’s a point that really carries no weight.
Further, “Terrorising the woman”. Surely an element of terror is consistent across almost every rape?
And, “Subjecting both women to sexual invasion of the worst and most degrading kind; the younger one raped repeatedly and tortured over a period of appx four hours, the older one for appx a third of that timescale”. This is highly subjective. Of course the rapes are bad but are they the worst and most degrading - no, unfortunately other women go through worse. To make matters worse, the poster then goes on to point out a significant difference between the offences -time.
I understand that people are outraged by gender based violence and that rape is an abhorrent crime. However, we were discussing how specific acts from one crime to another matched to prove both crimes were committed by the same person. In this regard, the post you mention only shows what is normal in most rapes and on a few occasions points out inconsistencies between the crimes.
I stand by my point that the only thing connecting these crimes is that in both cases, the perpetrator filmed the act.
Does this mean it was the same offender? IMO, no.
I think it’s fair to say that rape is brutal and therefore it cannot be used to support the theory that the same offender committed both crimes.The comparison I made concerned a brutal rape which was perpetrated in 2005 and a similarly brutal rape which was perpetrated in 2004.
A verdict will be arrived at in these five cases based on evidence presented in court just as the verdict in the rape of 2005 case was. Whether or not the modus operandi will be a consideration for the court is for the court to decide. But it has certainly been brought into consideration by CB's defence who had the trial judge brought in as a witness. Don't know if that was a particularly prudent thing to do'
- CB was found guilty of the 2005 rape.
- CB was indicted for the 2004 rape and is currently being tried for it and four other offences.
My opinion
IMO the court will look for an array of distinctive factors that can be seen to amount to a distinctive MO.
For example the tying up on the victims, striking with an object/torture and extended nature of the attacks. Neither is distinctive by itself but if viewed as a total matrix of factors, could be relevant
Better is something truly unique like the painted googles but we don't have that here
MOO.
It is not only the brutality of both crimes which is at issue: it is the synergy of the actions carried out in the process of committing each, as recorded by the witnesses who viewed the videos and verified by the women who were treated as the objects of lust and power by the perpetrator.I think it’s fair to say that rape is brutal and therefore it cannot be used to support the theory that the same offender committed both crimes.
We are discussing the MO link or lack there of between DM and HeB.It is not only the brutality of both crimes which is at issue: it is the synergy of the actions carried out in the process of committing each, as recorded by the witnesses who viewed the videos and verified by the women who were treated as the objects of lust and power by the perpetrator.
Both outrages recorded in police files at the time and confirmed in witness statements to the court many years later.
There is also a difference in the intensity of the rapes.We are discussing the MO link or lack there of between DM and HeB.
The blacked-out swimming googles was a consistent element between HeB’s statement regarding the elderly British woman and DM. I have no argument here.
It is precisely the absence of a unique link between DM and HaB that is my point.
The crimes occurred a year apart. Yes, they were both recorded but frankly, so what. This does not mean CB committed the offence against HaB.
Yes, this is another significant difference. DM was only very briefly raped as the perp could not maintain an erection. Based on her examination, it was questioned whether or not she was raped.There is also a difference in the intensity of the rapes.
According to prosecution statements, HaB was raped 3 times, including anally and orally over a period of several hours, whereas with DM there was no mention of such and the attack was relatively short.
As an aside, what would have been the approximate duration of a recording tape 20 years ago ?
But DM was also beaten, same as HB. And the perpetrator in both cases carrying a rape kit. This could also be a similar MO.Yes, this is another significant difference. DM was only very briefly raped as the perp could not maintain an erection. Based on her examination, it was questioned whether or not she was raped.
What do you mean by a rape kit ?But DM was also beaten, same as HB. And the perpetrator in both cases carrying a rape kit. This could also be a similar MO.
Not sure that beating is unusual enough to be specific to this criminal.But DM was also beaten, same as HB. And the perpetrator in both cases carrying a rape kit. This could also be a similar MO.
There is a metal object, knife, video recorder. This is consistent but there are strong inconsistencies - the physical rape itself is very different as you point out above, the victims are very different, the duration of the attack, lying in wait vs breaking and entering, Portuguese speaker vs English with German accent - the entire description of the offenders is different etc.What do you mean by a rape kit ?