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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
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.
I think this trial has been telling in what they have: witness statements, emails and writing that shows CB is a paedo and pervert, and coincidental suspect behaviours - Jag, deleting emails, phone call etc.

As I’ve posted before, the case is built on HeB’s statement and lots of tantalising circumstantial evidence that could genuinely be coincidental.
 
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.
The judge/court it is reported are considering whether the evidence is admissible in the cases on trial at the moment,to do so they must have thought the defence must have produced a reasonable argument rather than technicalities not least the legality of the factory searches.
 
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.
Did I say anything about opportunistic?
 
The judge/court it is reported are considering whether the evidence is admissible in the cases on trial at the moment,to do so they must have thought the defence must have produced a reasonable argument rather than technicalities not least the legality of the factory searches.
Given the police officer who found the material admitted on the stand to making up a bogus reason to search the property, I’d say the argument is reasonable.
 
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.
Insofar as your recognition of CB's defence team tactics of including the MM investigation and witnesses in this one for the five trials presently underway, the question has to be asked "WHY" do that?

These five cases presently undergoing trial are each and every one stand alone cases.
Not one of which has anything even remotely at all to do with the MM case or indeed any other case which may have occurred in the length and breadth of the Algarve during CB's sojourn there.

Evidence has been presented relative to these five cases and no others; so why go off on a tangent to force any other into the mix. One can only surmise the furore if the prosecution were to similarly attempt to use that ploy.:rolleyes:

For example there is the allegation made by an accomplice of a different type of criminality out with the scope of this five offence trial exactly as the MM case is.
Snip
From that day R grew increasingly suspicious of CB, particularly after he was accused of raping a pensioner, 72, to which he was found guilty and given a seven-year sentence in 2020.

Police had already found child *advertiser censored* on a camera at his kiosk and a mutual friend was investigated for child *advertiser censored*, AFTER CB had been surfing on his laptop.
“I realised he had an even darker soul than I could have imagined,
...

He continued: “I didn’t give up however and I drove him into a corner asking him about the child *advertiser censored* and why he needed three computers at his kiosk.

“Eventually he snapped, became really aggressive and then suddenly he left and climbed over my garden fence without a word and ran away. …and that was that, our friendship was over.”

...

“When I analyse my friendship with him there’s nothing good I can take away, but one thing is also clear: CB wasn’t born a monster, he was made that way, I’m sure of that!”

 
Insofar as your recognition of CB's defence team tactics of including the MM investigation and witnesses in this one for the five trials presently underway, the question has to be asked "WHY" do that?

These five cases presently undergoing trial are each and every one stand alone cases.
Not one of which has anything even remotely at all to do with the MM case or indeed any other case which may have occurred in the length and breadth of the Algarve during CB's sojourn there.

Evidence has been presented relative to these five cases and no others; so why go off on a tangent to force any other into the mix. One can only surmise the furore if the prosecution were to similarly attempt to use that ploy.:rolleyes:

For example there is the allegation made by an accomplice of a different type of criminality out with the scope of this five offence trial exactly as the MM case is.
Snip
From that day R grew increasingly suspicious of CB, particularly after he was accused of raping a pensioner, 72, to which he was found guilty and given a seven-year sentence in 2020.

Police had already found child *advertiser censored* on a camera at his kiosk and a mutual friend was investigated for child *advertiser censored*, AFTER CB had been surfing on his laptop.
“I realised he had an even darker soul than I could have imagined,
...

He continued: “I didn’t give up however and I drove him into a corner asking him about the child *advertiser censored* and why he needed three computers at his kiosk.

“Eventually he snapped, became really aggressive and then suddenly he left and climbed over my garden fence without a word and ran away. …and that was that, our friendship was over.”

...

“When I analyse my friendship with him there’s nothing good I can take away, but one thing is also clear: CB wasn’t born a monster, he was made that way, I’m sure of that!”

As is often the case, it’s quite difficult to understand your point or the relevance of the OP citation.

Of course the current five cases are connected to the MM case. They are all part of the same investigation.

Therefore, any additional information the defence can obtain about the whole investigation may be useful in future cases.

It seems fairly obvious that the defence team would want to know what information has the BKA has or in this case likely does not have in relation to their client.
 
Given the police officer who found the material admitted on the stand to making up a bogus reason to search the property, I’d say the argument is reasonable.

Found what material?

What is the relevance of this allegedly illegal search to any one of the five trials currently underway in the Braunschweig court where CB is on trial for serious sexual offences.

The defence tactic appears to be divergence into realms which have nothing at all to do with the case in hand.

One can follow the interest given to the 2019 rape trial where CB was found guilty of aggravated rape and the precedent was set for the introduction the now non-existent video tapes.

The allegation that a police officer behaved illegally is surely for another charge and another trial - not this one!
Unless you can indicate the relevance.

Like all law enforcement the judge might be obliged to direct scrutiny towards illegality when it is brought before her.
But why now and why before this court and not follow the procedure for reporting a crime to the appropriate authority?
 
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.
Evidence is evidence tbh. The prosecution put it in wanting it to be allowed obviously..that evidence would be related to both potential trials as it concerns him
 
Found what material?

What is the relevance of this allegedly illegal search to any one of the five trials currently underway in the Braunschweig court where CB is on trial for serious sexual offences.

The defence tactic appears to be divergence into realms which have nothing at all to do with the case in hand.

One can follow the interest given to the 2019 rape trial where CB was found guilty of aggravated rape and the precedent was set for the introduction the now non-existent video tapes.

The allegation that a police officer behaved illegally is surely for another charge and another trial - not this one!
Unless you can indicate the relevance.

Like all law enforcement the judge might be obliged to direct scrutiny towards illegality when it is brought before her.
But why now and why before this court and not follow the procedure for reporting a crime to the appropriate authority?
Are you following the same case as everyone else?

The prosecution has submitted information found on the USB sticks as evidence in this trial. It has been reported that their are two works of fiction, allegedly penned by CB, which discuss CSA and rape in graphic detail.

Having this evidence ruled inadmissible in this case would be a win and would likely mean it would be inadmissible in a trial for the murder of MM.

It seems quite clear that the busy-body police officer and neighbour has run a check on her new drunken person next door who lives in a caravan. Ah-hah, he has a record as a kiddy fidler - I wonder what he is doing on his scary deserted box factory? If only there was a reason for me to pop over the fence and have a bloody good rummage…
 
Found what material?

What is the relevance of this allegedly illegal search to any one of the five trials currently underway in the Braunschweig court where CB is on trial for serious sexual offences.

The defence tactic appears to be divergence into realms which have nothing at all to do with the case in hand.

One can follow the interest given to the 2019 rape trial where CB was found guilty of aggravated rape and the precedent was set for the introduction the now non-existent video tapes.

The allegation that a police officer behaved illegally is surely for another charge and another trial - not this one!
Unless you can indicate the relevance.

Like all law enforcement the judge might be obliged to direct scrutiny towards illegality when it is brought before her.
But why now and why before this court and not follow the procedure for reporting a crime to the appropriate authority?
the relevance is because the BKA wanted the "evidence" included in this current trial. Therefore the Judge needs to deal with it now. Pretty sure the Judge knows what they are doing tbh
 
Last edited:
As is often the case, it’s quite difficult to understand your point or the relevance of the OP citation.

Of course the current five cases are connected to the MM case. They are all part of the same investigation.

Therefore, any additional information the defence can obtain about the whole investigation may be useful in future cases.

It seems fairly obvious that the defence team would want to know what information has the BKA has or in this case likely does not have in relation to their client.

Your synopsis appears to indicate a rather different view of crime and punishment from the norm.

As is usual with all law enforcement agencies there are many different investigations in progress. Each and every individual case progresses to it's conclusion which starts with evidence gathering.

Let us look at the five cases currently being tried in the Braunschweig court with all that links them being the alleged perpetrator
  • CB was charged with raping an unknown approximately 70-80-year-old woman in her bedroom in Portugal.
  • CB was also charged with raping an "unknown German-speaking girl aged at least 14 years" who was "tied naked to a wooden pole in the living room" in the house where CB lived in Praia da Luz, Portugal, beat her with a whip and forced her to perform oral sex
  • CB was charged with attacking HB in her apartment in Portugal's Praia da Rocha in 2004.
    According to investigators, the perpetrator in that attack acted very similarly to the man who attacked and raped a 72-year-old woman known as DM. in her home in nearby Praia da Luz in 2005.
Although the rapes of HB and DM were similar and happened within the same time scale neither those nor that of the two unknown women were used as part and parcel of the same case.
They are three separate offences all of which will stand as DM's did (or fall) depending on the evidence.

  • CB was charged that on April 7, 2007, he allegedly grabbed a 10-year-old girl from Germany as she played on a Portuguese beach.
  • CB was charged that on June 11, 2017, he exposed himself and masturbated in front of children at a playground in Portugal. The girl ran to her father, and CB was arrested.
"The clues that led to the new charges against CB came largely from the investigation into the MM case."

Nothing connects these five cases to the MM case apart from the fact that the same suspect is in the frame.
They are each a stand alone case each with it's own unique evidence and certainly not a case of 'one size fits all. Each charge will be tried on it's merits. As these five will be. Just as the MM case will be as or when charges are laid.
 
the relevance is because the BKA wanted the "evidence" included in this current trial. Therefore the Judge needs to deal with it now. Pretty sure the Judge knows what they are doing tbh
Of course the presumption must be that the judge knows the law. Just as the presumption can be made that in the absence of expert commentary from someone conversant with German law (which is singularly missing from the understanding of this case) the tendency to err is ever present.
my opinion
 
Evidence is evidence tbh. The prosecution put it in wanting it to be allowed obviously..that evidence would be related to both potential trials as it concerns him
Evidence is only evidence when it pertains to the offence or in this instance the five offences under trial.

Only evidence pertaining to these five cases should be uf relevance and none other.

Defence fishing expeditions for evidence in a case which is still under police investigation in the middle of five unrelated trials must surely be a phenomenon and quite an odd one at that.
My opinion
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IDK
Your synopsis appears to indicate a rather different view of crime and punishment from the norm.

As is usual with all law enforcement agencies there are many different investigations in progress. Each and every individual case progresses to it's conclusion which starts with evidence gathering.

Let us look at the five cases currently being tried in the Braunschweig court with all that links them being the alleged perpetrator
  • CB was charged with raping an unknown approximately 70-80-year-old woman in her bedroom in Portugal.
  • CB was also charged with raping an "unknown German-speaking girl aged at least 14 years" who was "tied naked to a wooden pole in the living room" in the house where CB lived in Praia da Luz, Portugal, beat her with a whip and forced her to perform oral sex
  • CB was charged with attacking HB in her apartment in Portugal's Praia da Rocha in 2004.
    According to investigators, the perpetrator in that attack acted very similarly to the man who attacked and raped a 72-year-old woman known as DM. in her home in nearby Praia da Luz in 2005.
Although the rapes of HB and DM were similar and happened within the same time scale neither those nor that of the two unknown women were used as part and parcel of the same case.
They are three separate offences all of which will stand as DM's did (or fall) depending on the evidence.

  • CB was charged that on April 7, 2007, he allegedly grabbed a 10-year-old girl from Germany as she played on a Portuguese beach.
  • CB was charged that on June 11, 2017, he exposed himself and masturbated in front of children at a playground in Portugal. The girl ran to her father, and CB was arrested.
"The clues that led to the new charges against CB came largely from the investigation into the MM case."

Nothing connects these five cases to the MM case apart from the fact that the same suspect is in the frame.
They are each a stand alone case each with it's own unique evidence and certainly not a case of 'one size fits all. Each charge will be tried on its merits. As these five will be. Just as the MM case will be as or when charges are laid.
BIB - they are all part of the same investigation.

It seems so obvious that the defence would want to obtain as much information as possible on this investigation in order to defend their client it’s not worth arguing.
[Mod snip]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you following the same case as everyone else?

The prosecution has submitted information found on the USB sticks as evidence in this trial. It has been reported that their are two works of fiction, allegedly penned by CB, which discuss CSA and rape in graphic detail.

Having this evidence ruled inadmissible in this case would be a win and would likely mean it would be inadmissible in a trial for the murder of MM.

It seems quite clear that the busy-body police officer and neighbour has run a check on her new drunken person next door who lives in a caravan. Ah-hah, he has a record as a kiddy fidler - I wonder what he is doing on his scary deserted box factory? If only there was a reason for me to pop over the fence and have a bloody good rummage…
There isn't any reference there at all to the substance of these five trials nor to CB's alleged role in them.

The defence is the driving force behind this distraction which as you have so rightly pointed out is ALL about MM and not at all about CB and his role as the accused in five sexually motivated crimes under trial even as we speak.

I reiterate my question of WHY is that?
 
BIB - they are all part of the same investigation.

It seems so obvious that the defence would want to obtain as much information as possible on this investigation in order to defend their client it’s not worth arguing.

No amount of repetitive diatribe will will change anyone’s mind on it.

You are mistaken in saying "they are all part of the same investigation".

They are not.

The root might very well be considered as the MM investigation. And from the root come the branches each with their own burden of evidence able to meet the requirements for a prosecution to be conducted.
 
You are mistaken in saying "they are all part of the same investigation".

They are not.

The root might very well be considered as the MM investigation. And from the root come the branches each with their own burden of evidence able to meet the requirements for a prosecution to be conducted.

Agree. CB is being investigated on suspicion of (MM's) murder, technically this is separate case, as are the the others.
 
Last edited:
Agree. CB is being investigated on suspicion of (MM's) murder, technically this is separate case, as are the the others.
Potentially some of the evidence may be in both cases or if the prosecution get their own way
 
Potentially some of the evidence may be in both cases or if the prosecution get their own way
That is highly unlikely. I can think of absolutely no "shared" evidence regarding any of the alleged cases presently being tried with the exception that the police informant of the rapes of the two unidentified women and the naming of MM's murderer was the same source.
  • indeed the rape of HB occurred before MM was born
  • the naked assailant of the German girl on the beach occurred before MM set foot in Portugal
  • the alleged assault in the children's playground did not take place until 2017
The only shared connection between these predatory assaults and MM is that CB is suspected of being the perpetrator of them all.

A lot of investigative time and expertise has been expended in the collection of evidence to first of all meet the standard to justify an indictment in each separate case and to bring them to trial.
Just as these five trials are all stand alone - should there be an indictment brought in the MM case, that too will be a stand alone trial complete with its own evidence.
My opinion
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
1,884
Total visitors
2,037

Forum statistics

Threads
599,212
Messages
18,091,816
Members
230,814
Latest member
akoyaqueen
Back
Top