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

[mrjitty]

HB and MS have been credible witnesses in the DM case. The judge from DM told us. As far as I can see there is no doubt and lately even MT told us about CB telling him about the rape of the teenager.
We have two chances. Either believe them or think it was all made up between all 3 of them.
I go with the first choice and the similarities of the DM case to the video rapes and HaB is striking. Especially DM and HaB, same entry, ( patio or balcony door) same backpack, same MO and same ending( sent to the bathroom)
I think there are much more similarities only a profiler ( Mr. D) can prove
MO of course

the difference is the burden of proof.

in the DM case the testimony of the two witnesses to the video only needed to be accepted to the evidential standard as part of the overall evidence in the case.

in this proceedings they are the only evidence to the rapes on video and thus must rise to BARD standard.

i agree the 2019 ruling is an established ruling that doesn’t have to be proven all over again.

i am not sure even after accepting the 2019 ruling the burden of proof is met.

IMO

 

[Mex]

the difference is the burden of proof.

in the DM case the testimony of the two witnesses to the video only needed to be accepted to the evidential standard as part of the overall evidence in the case.

in this proceedings they are the only evidence to the rapes on video and thus must rise to BARD standard.

i agree the 2019 ruling is an established ruling that doesn’t have to be proven all over again.

i am not sure even after accepting the 2019 ruling the burden of proof is met.

IMO

The identification evidence was the beginning, the rest of the evidence collected made the case which was taken to the court.

I don't know whether or not the forensic evidence indicating that CB was the perpetrator was absolutely necessary to prove the point, or if the sum total of circumstantial evidence would have done the trick anyway.

The forensic evidence wasn't considered in isolation. What it did do was to ensure that along with the rest of the proceedings it ratified the safety of the conviction by proving the total narrative. That is right back to basics with CB's identity being given to the police by the two informants.
My opinion

 

[JB1510]

Regarding HB’s case would it have been possible for the BKA to conduct an audio “line up “ so to speak in terms as to whether she would recognise the voice of her attacker ? Just interested to know seeing as JE was asked to pick her assailant from a photo line up. The timeframe is limited though June 2020 until 31 July 2020 (video release of CB in Spain) CB was recorded audibly when filmed in April 2007 .

 

[Mex]

Regarding HB’s case would it have been possible for the BKA to conduct an audio “line up “ so to speak in terms as to whether she would recognise the voice of her attacker ? Just interested to know seeing as JE was asked to pick her assailant from a photo line up. The timeframe is limited though June 2020 until 31 July 2020 (video release of CB in Spain) CB was recorded audibly when filmed in April 2007 .

CB has exercised his right of silence. Interesting thought as to whether or not vocal evidence would be covered by that. Probably it would be; particularly as it could be deemed self incriminatory.
My opinion

 

[JB1510]

Interesting so it would have to be voluntary to be admissible? They couldn’t use for instance recorded previous interviews?

 

[RichardKimble]

Dbm

 

[RichardKimble]

Interesting so it would have to be voluntary to be admissible? They couldn’t use for instance recorded previous interviews?

I somehow doubt that would be allowed from an interview.

 

[Mex]

Interesting so it would have to be voluntary to be admissible? They couldn’t use for instance recorded previous interviews?

Honestly don't know. But I imagine if it was admissible it would need to reflect the words used as reported by the person assaulted, so that would require a measure of cooperation from the accused.

Another similarity between the 2004 and 2005 rapes is the fact that both survivors reported being spoken to by the rapist.

 

[Davieson]

Is a sample of 2 statistically significant ?

 

[Mex]

Is a sample of 2 statistically significant ?

If we are talking two rapes statistically that makes 100% Which is significant enough for most.

 

[JB1510]

Honestly don't know. But I imagine if it was admissible it would need to reflect the words used as reported by the person assaulted, so that would require a measure of cooperation from the accused.

Another similarity between the 2004 and 2005 rapes is the fact that both survivors reported being spoken to by the rapist.

Makes sense regarding the use of words involved with the victim.I’m just surprised with technology these days that for instance you had a perpetrators voice you could replicate the context amongst 9 other voices
interpreting the same.Facial recognition/ Voice recognition is everything these days and the recogniser can always say it was none anyway.

 

[Janosch]

If we are talking two rapes statistically that makes 100% Which is significant enough for most.

Statistics are not proof.

 

[Mex]

Statistics are not proof.

Possibly even the reverse.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments, "one of the best, and best-known" critiques of applied statistics.[2] It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.

 

[Anxala]

As I said the judges know surely about MS then and now. People get old, dement,ill important was what MS told 2019 when he was able to remember. BKA surely know people aren’t the same as witnesses getting older or dement within the years. Not often witnesses should come up multiple times in their lifes

^ Yes. In the light of his current health issues, what he said in 2019 should be regarded as his definitive evidence.

 

[Davieson]

^ Yes. In the light of his current health issues, what he said in 2019 should be regarded as his definitive evidence.

So what was the point of calling him as a witness?

 

[RichardKimble]

So what was the point of calling him as a witness?

The defence have a right to question him.

 

[UK Girl]

The defence have a right to question him.

I am kind of confused because here in the Uk you could give a statement and in court you would testify and it should roughly be the same. They wouldnt go simply go by the original testimony and even the Judge has called some people out for their testimony being different to original statement. In the case of MS we do not even know how serious the cancer is and its actually weird that FF asked if he had dementia because the testimony was different so I assume that before MT said about it they didnt even know

Anyone can make a statement but the issue is whether it stands up in court under scrutiny

 

[RichardKimble]

I am kind of confused because here in the Uk you could give a statement and in court you would testify and it should roughly be the same. They wouldnt go simply go by the original testimony and even the Judge has called some people out for their testimony being different to original statement. In the case of MS we do not even know how serious the cancer is and its actually weird that FF asked if he had dementia so I assume that before MT said about it they didnt even know

Anyone can make a statement but the issue is whether it stands up in court under scrutiny

It would be interesting to know the if prosecution and defence get to sum up.

 

[Anxala]

So what was the point of calling him as a witness?

The court wouldn't have known in advance that he was going to stumble through his testimony. It was only under questioning that it became apparent that there were gaps in his memory. If those gaps are health-related (eg. dementia, memory loss from long term alcohol abuse etc), then what can the court do? Declare him an unreliable witness or accept the testimony he gave when his health wasn't an issue? I don't know how these things work, I'm just giving an opinion.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

The court wouldn't have known in advance that he was going to stumble through his testimony. It was only under questioning that it became apparent that there were gaps in his memory. If those gaps are health-related (eg. dementia, memory loss from long term alcohol abuse etc), then what can the court do? Declare him an unreliable witness or accept the testimony he gave when his health wasn't an issue? I don't know how these things work, I'm just giving an opinion.

You would think that only evidence given in the current case would be relevant. If that is not consistent with prior statements then that brings into question his reliability as a witness. I would assume that it doesn’t matter the reason why his statement changed, just that it changed is enough of a problem. Perhaps I’m wrong but dismissing what is said in this trial in favour of what was said when a witness was in sound/er mind is illogical - why have him as a witness.