Germany/Portugal - Christian Brueckner, 27 @ time of 1st crime (2004), charged with sexual assault crimes, Praia de Rocha, Portugal. #4

[Denis R Tandib]

Possibly because the only witness (MS) to the 3rd clip (approx.5 mins seen) showing the Italian-speaking victim couldn't recall enough facts and what he did recollect couldn't be corroborated by HeB.
The first clip of an elderly woman, seen only by HeB, lasted approx 30 mins and much more detail was remembered by the witness. It was very similar to DM rape.

You are essentially saying that MS is an unreliable witness. This is what several of us are arguing.

 

[misty48]

You are essentially saying that MS is an unreliable witness. This is what several of us are arguing.

If not precisely recalling the contents of 2 short videos MS witnessed almost 20 years ago makes him an unreliable witness, then yes, he is, just as most people over a certain age would be. However, what he saw on tape clearly left a strong impression.

 

[UK Girl]

If not precisely recalling the contents of 2 short videos MS witnessed almost 20 years ago makes him an unreliable witness, then yes, he is, just as most people over a certain age would be. However, what he saw on tape clearly left a strong impression.

what I dont get is considering that HB says there were two rape videos and he was the one actually watching the recording and called MS over how he can be wrong about how many there were?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

If not precisely recalling the contents of 2 short videos MS witnessed almost 20 years ago makes him an unreliable witness, then yes, he is, just as most people over a certain age would be. However, what he saw on tape clearly left a strong impression.

But that is the same for the rape of the older British woman - only HeB saw it, 20 years ago. This one made it to the charge sheet but the Italian woman didn’t.

It’s not me saying he is unreliable, it’s the BKA due to the lack of charge.

You don’t agree?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I suspect also that, without a victim, it would be difficult to prove from the little MS saw, that it wasn't consentual. An adult woman, an unmasked CB, in CB's home. Without the woman's input, there's no way of knowing if it was just adult play gone rough or whatever. I can see why it didn't meet the charge criteria.

The two other video attacks/rapes were clear cut by comparison.

It could also be that there wasn’t enough similarities with this crime as with the others.

The German woman is straightforward, MS corroborates HeB.

The older British woman crime was charged due to similarities with the DM crime, even though only HeB saw the footage.

The Italian woman is a distinctly different victim. She is much younger than DM I the British victim and much older than HaB and the German victim.

As you say, she was not restrained nor blindfolded.

It could be a different MO.

 

[mrjitty]

I think the main issue on the video rapes is burden of proof.

The previous Judge already accepted the evidence, but it was not a ruling to the criminal standard. I suspect this one might come down to some procedural questions given the witnesses appeared to present better 5 years ago. So what weight to give the 2019 trial? Is it determinative?

IMO

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I think the main issue on the video rapes is burden of proof.

The previous Judge already accepted the evidence, but it was not a ruling to the criminal standard. I suspect this one might come down to some procedural questions given the witnesses appeared to present better 5 years ago. So what weight to give the 2019 trial? Is it determinative?

IMO

I don’t know. Is this part of what the prosecution is trying to achieve?

As the 2019 judge accepted the testimonies of HeB and MS as the truth, is this judge compelled to do the same? Does German law work that way?

Does the DM conviction carry any weight in this trial.

 

[C.greek]

I don’t know. Is this part of what the prosecution is trying to achieve?

As the 2019 judge accepted the testimonies of HeB and MS as the truth, is this judge compelled to do the same? Does German law work that way?

Does the DM conviction carry any weight in this trial.

I think it would be important to mention that the defence asked for the 2019 judge to come as a witness, if I am not mistaken?

 

[UK Girl]

I think it would be important to mention that the defence asked for the 2019 judge to come as a witness, if I am not mistaken?

they wanted to know if HB had mentioned in the first trial about supposedly saying 2005 on the video

 

[Denis R Tandib]

they wanted to know if HB had mentioned in the first trial about supposedly saying 2005 on the video

The OG detective MD confirmed that he didn’t say that in his 2017 statement.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I think it would be important to mention that the defence asked for the 2019 judge to come as a witness, if I am not mistaken?

Perhaps to understand what informed her decision that HeB and MS were telling the truth?

Obviously they are critical to the recorded rapes. The only evidence they happened is from them - which seems strange - so attacking their statements is key for the defence.

 

[tedtink]

I did say in my last post that the content didn’t have to have anything to do with IG , MM or any other missing children . My point was that the police woman had a hunch about CB and she was right he’d buried a stash of vile material under a dead dog hoping no one would dig it up.

Before I get retold about how procedures must be followed I do understand that . So just to confirm if the judge deems the evidence found at the box factory illegal that evidence can never be used ever again

Probably been mentioned before but I'm catching up.........
BBM - Hopefully the BKA found all of the devices/hard drives, from where the evidence originated before it was transferred to memory sticks, elsewhere.
Possibly why defence is also trying to get the hard drive evidence thrown out too.
Memory sticks/ stuff found on hard drive is possibly the same evidence, so if one set can't be used let's hope the other can.

JMO

 

[UK Girl]

Probably been mentioned before but I'm catching up.........
BBM - Hopefully the BKA found all of the devices/hard drives, from where the evidence originated before it was transferred to memory sticks, elsewhere.
Possibly why defence is also trying to get the hard drive evidence thrown out too.
Memory sticks/ stuff found on hard drive is possibly the same evidence, so if one set can't be used let's hope the other can.

JMO

if that was the case why not try and add that as evidence instead of the stuff that they did produce? it would have made them look more legit at least.

 

[Mex]

MS and HeB were friends who have offended together. Why give them any realibility in their statements?

However reprehensible their criminal activities might have been, the authorities were duty bound to investigate information volunteered.
It could have been a time wasting exercise. On this occasion the opposite was true.

• initially one of these criminals contacted Operation Grange officers with information
• whatever the character or criminality of the informant this information had to be checked out
• during the verification process an unsolved rape from 2005 which mimicked the information received from the criminal was uncovered
• witness evidence and forensic evidence proved part of the criminal's statement and was acceptable enough to lead to the conviction of CB for aggravated rape

Without the criminal giving up CB's name to the police I doubt if he would ever have stood trial for rape in 2019. The information could only have come from one of CB's criminal acquaintances. Had investigators deliberately ignored what the witness imparted, that would have been a dereliction of duty which would have left a very dangerous man free to walk the streets and DM's rapist left unpunished.

 

[UK Girl]

However reprehensible their criminal activities might have been, the authorities were duty bound to investigate information volunteered.
It could have been a time wasting exercise. On this occasion the opposite was true.

• initially one of these criminals contacted Operation Grange officers with information
• whatever the character or criminality of the informant this information had to be checked out
• during the verification process an unsolved rape from 2005 which mimicked the information received from the criminal was uncovered
• witness evidence and forensic evidence proved part of the criminal's statement and was acceptable enough to lead to the conviction of CB for aggravated rape

Without the criminal giving up CB's name to the police I doubt if he would ever have stood trial for rape in 2019. The information could only have come from one of CB's criminal acquaintances. Had investigators deliberately ignored what the witness imparted, that would have been a dereliction of duty which would have left a very dangerous man free to walk the streets and DM's rapist left unpunished.

yet according to HB a police investigator did just that. He claims he went to his friend who was a policeman with "evidence" and he was told to keep his information to himself.

 

[tedtink]

if that was the case why not try and add that as evidence instead of the stuff that they did produce? it would have made them look more legit at least.

My answer was in reply to JB1510 asking if the evidence could 'never be used again'. I wasn't referring to the current trial.

 

[UK Girl]

My answer was in reply to JB1510 asking if the evidence could 'never be used again'. I wasn't referring to the current trial.

Yeah but the same point. If they had the original items they could have most probably used them in this trial instead of the ones they are trying to get allowed.

 

[C.greek]

Yeah but the same point. If they had the original items they could have most probably used them in this trial instead of the ones they are trying to get allowed.

As far as I understand, these items are for a different investigation, the MM one. The defence were given a huge load of evidence to go through which includes evidence that stems from the MM investigation. The defence is fighting to have all this excluded and not the prosecution trying to get it allowed. The defence are the ones who bring these all up. So, perhaps the prosecution is keeping some evidence behind as it is related to another investigation.

 

[RichardKimble]

As far as I understand, these items are for a different investigation, the MM one. The defence were given a huge load of evidence to go through which includes evidence that stems from the MM investigation. The defence is fighting to have all this excluded and not the prosecution trying to get it allowed. The defence are the ones who bring these all up. So, perhaps the prosecution is keeping some evidence behind as it is related to another investigation.

Where did you get the items for the MM case? HCW has been unequivocal in that they have, no photos, no video ,no forensics to link CB to MM, but this is for the other thread.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

As far as I understand, these items are for a different investigation, the MM one. The defence were given a huge load of evidence to go through which includes evidence that stems from the MM investigation. The defence is fighting to have all this excluded and not the prosecution trying to get it allowed. The defence are the ones who bring these all up. So, perhaps the prosecution is keeping some evidence behind as it is related to another investigation.

The BKA have only one investigation. That investigation concerns CB, it is not victim specific.

The prosecution submit the evidence during the discovery phase pre trial. This evidence forms the basis of the charges. So of course the prosecution are not arguing to have it included, it’s already there.

The defence is doing what the defence does which is question the admissibility of the evidence. Ultimately the judge will rule whether it’s admissible or not.

IMO, FF and the defence team are using this opportunity to understand more about the entire investigation which includes MM. This would be to assist preparation of a defence in that trial, very unlikely IMO, if it occurs, and to assess the possibility of civil action on behalf of CB if the public claims do not have sound foundations.

All this stuff about the defence using technicalities and being opportunistic is nonsense IMO. The defence understand the law and they are testing the legality of the prosecution’s evidence - as they should.