Germany/Portugal - Christian Brueckner, 27 @ time of 1st crime (2004), charged with sexual assault crimes, Praia de Rocha, Portugal. #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Any news from the court for today? TIA! :)
 
Denis R Tandib said:
It has to be established that the MO is the same. I don’t think it has been.
Click to expand...

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
  • 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
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.
 
Nothing in ,but I did notice today would be a carry on of yesterday
with JE in a German press report. I know before the trial dates were scheduled there was talk of media blackout due to the nature of charges and age of some of the victims .Maybe this is one of those days, the Braunschweig press had been reporting day to day up until now.
 
Janosch said:
Two different offenders may have almost identical modus operandi.
Click to expand...
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.

It is possible at the time HB was raped in 2004 that the investigators checked previously reported cases in a scoping exercise to ascertain what they were dealing with. Probably the best indicator they could expect to find is an assailant using a similar modus operandi or a witness identification. That would be a starting point for an investigation which had no obvious assailant in mind.

When DM was raped in 2005, a trawl of serious incidents should have flagged up the existence of a very similar offence conducted with similar savagery within a very close time scale. The obvious differences being one was perpetrated in a ground floor villa in a rural area while the other was perpetrated in an urban area hotel room on an upper floor.

Apparently that diligence was never conducted and therefore no connection between the two events was apparent prior to CB’s conviction for the 2005 rape.

This 2024 trial of the 2004 rape is basically a stand alone one although the result of the 2019 rape trial is common knowledge; as is the fact HB’s attention was drawn to comparison with her own ordeal and sickening similarity of MO. Investigators agreed and the first obstacle to being heard in court was overcome when there was enough evidence to support an indictment.
Similarity between the MO of these two rapes wasn't an issue because they hadn't been paired. It was the veracity of the witnesses who viewed the videos which set the ball rolling proving that every one of these five cases consist of a myriad of evidence and very different methods of doing things.
 
JB1510 said:
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
  • 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
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Denis R Tandib said:
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.
Click to expand...
The comparison I made concerned a brutal rape which was perpetrated in 2005 and a similarly brutal rape which was perpetrated in 2004.
  • 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.
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'
My opinion
 
Mex said:
The comparison I made concerned a brutal rape which was perpetrated in 2005 and a similarly brutal rape which was perpetrated in 2004.
  • 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.
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'
My opinion
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
mrjitty said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who needs painted goggles when one has DNA recovered from the perpetrator's body hair found in the victim's bed.

I agree with the rest of your synopsis.
 
Denis R Tandib said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mex said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Denis R Tandib said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 ?
 
Davieson said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Denis R Tandib said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
C.greek said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not sure that beating is unusual enough to be specific to this criminal.

Rape kit or preparation. The perp had equipment necessary to commit an intentional crime and hide his identity.

All I’m really saying is that when reviewing cold cases, the police obviously didn’t see HaB’s rape as a match but they did DM’s.

I don’t think the MO evidence in the case of HaB is strong because there are at least as many significant differences between the two crimes as there are similarities so I don’t know why it can be said to be the same offender.
 
Davieson said:
What do you mean by a rape kit ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 175 more.
Total: 5,071 (members: 176, guests: 4,895)

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
4,895
Total visitors
5,071
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,828
Messages
18,147,434
Members
231,547
Latest member
Jesspi
Back
Top