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

[Denis R Tandib]

What arrest warrant?! Isn't he currently in jail and also in trial?!

This explains it.

Christian Brueckner 'could walk free from prison by Christmas'

The prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann trial could walk free from jail before Christmas after a dramatic new move from his legal team.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Denis R Tandib]

FF speaking about the request to get the arrest warrant cancelled.

He added he was confident the court would grant their request, saying: "I am sure this will be granted. I can't imagine it any other way."

"After the evidence had been taken, not a single accusation had been substantiated in such a way that one can speak of a suspicion of an offence," he went on.

Madeleine McCann: Prime suspect in child's disappearance could be freed from jail in months

Christian B is the prime suspect in the disappearance of British girl Madeleine McCann. Now, his lawyers have applied for his arrest warrant for a string of unrelated sex offences to be overturned.

news.sky.com

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Worth a read.

MSN

 

[tedtink]

FF is just grandstanding IMO.
The Judges will decide.

 

[Davieson]

FF is just grandstanding IMO.
The Judges will decide.

And fairly soon from what I understand.

 

[Mex]

And fairly soon from what I understand.

There is no indictment against CB in the MM case yet. However, he is currently on trial in Braunschweig for

• three rapes
• and two cases of sexual abuse of children.
• A verdict is to be made in October.

Braunschweig: Neue Spur im Fall Maddie McCann? Ermittler nehmen Mercedes unter die Lupe

Gelingt den Ermittlern im Fall Maddie McCann endlich der Durchbruch? Wieder führt eine Spur nach Braunschweig.

www.news38.de

 

[RichardKimble]

Worth a read.

MSN

The scar or lack of gets an outing again.

In the case of an Irish woman who was raped in Portugal in 2004 and testified as a witness in the trial, the defendant is convinced that the defense is excluded as a perpetrator because of physical characteristics such as a scar on the thigh. „ In addition, we simply consider recognition based on the blue eye color to be impossible “, said Fülscher. The witness had reported in court of „ piercing blue eyes “. „ His eyes, I think this man is the attacker “, she said.

 

[RichardKimble]

FF speaking about the request to get the arrest warrant cancelled.

He added he was confident the court would grant their request, saying: "I am sure this will be granted. I can't imagine it any other way."

"After the evidence had been taken, not a single accusation had been substantiated in such a way that one can speak of a suspicion of an offence," he went on.

Madeleine McCann: Prime suspect in child's disappearance could be freed from jail in months

Christian B is the prime suspect in the disappearance of British girl Madeleine McCann. Now, his lawyers have applied for his arrest warrant for a string of unrelated sex offences to be overturned.

news.sky.com

No Brunt ?

 

[C.greek]

I don't get it. There is enough evidence to show he is guilty for one of the charges at least, in the playground. He was arrested on the spot for that, there is no reason to believe otherwise. What is FF claiming there is 't enough evidence to substantiate the arrest. Was the arrest related to the other 4 cases only? I really don't get it. Was he arrested for all 5 alleged offences? I don't understand the system and I don't understand what FF is trying to do? Preempty the trial?

 

[RichardKimble]

I don't get it. There is enough evidence to show he is guilty for one of the charges at least, in the playground. He was arrested on the spot for that, there is no reason to believe otherwise. What is FF claiming there is 't enough evidence to substantiate the arrest. Was the arrest related to the other 4 cases only? I really don't get it. Was he arrested for all 5 alleged offences? I don't understand the system and I don't understand what FF is trying to do? Preempty the trial?

There must be something in the procedures to warrant the move, I doubt the defence is winging it.

 

[Anxala]

I don't get it. There is enough evidence to show he is guilty for one of the charges at least, in the playground. He was arrested on the spot for that, there is no reason to believe otherwise. What is FF claiming there is 't enough evidence to substantiate the arrest. Was the arrest related to the other 4 cases only? I really don't get it. Was he arrested for all 5 alleged offences? I don't understand the system and I don't understand what FF is trying to do? Preempty the trial?

He was arrested on the spot but there's only the 11yr old's word for what he was doing. This was questioned in court where the defence IIRC argued that the 11yr old could have mistaken what she'd seen as CB masturbating and pleasuring himself as CB (possibly a drunken CB) just having a pee and then shaking himself dry. I know, it's a stretch, but I guess without any other witnessess to corroborate, the reliance solely upon an 11yr old's testimony is what the defence's focus is.

Germany/Portugal – *Charged (Oct. 11, 2022) & arrest warrant reinstated 11/18/22 – Ines VP (11 year old Portuguese girl) (pulled down his trousers & underpants & made masturbation movements on his naked penis in order to sexually arouse himself, until the frightened girl ran to her father for help. The suspect was arrested on the spot by the Portuguese police). Exposed himself in playpark, São Bartolomeu de Messines, June 11, 2017).

NB. I'm not questioning/doubting the girl's account of what she saw, just objectively looking at the evidence and the position the defence has taken here.

As to what FF is doing? He and his team are just doing the job they're there to do.

I don't see the problem here. The judge will decide what's what.

 

[tedtink]

He was arrested on the spot but there's only the 11yr old's word for what he was doing. This was questioned in court where the defence IIRC argued that the 11yr old could have mistaken what she'd seen as CB masturbating and pleasuring himself as CB (possibly a drunken CB) just having a pee and then shaking himself dry. I know, it's a stretch, but I guess without any other witnessess to corroborate, the reliance solely upon an 11yr old's testimony is what the defence's focus is.

Germany/Portugal – *Charged (Oct. 11, 2022) & arrest warrant reinstated 11/18/22 – Ines VP (11 year old Portuguese girl) (pulled down his trousers & underpants & made masturbation movements on his naked penis in order to sexually arouse himself, until the frightened girl ran to her father for help. The suspect was arrested on the spot by the Portuguese police). Exposed himself in playpark, São Bartolomeu de Messines, June 11, 2017).

NB. I'm not questioning/doubting the girl's account of what she saw, just objectively looking at the evidence and the position the defence has taken here.

As to what FF is doing? He and his team are just doing the job they're there to do.

I don't see the problem here. The judge will decide what's what.

IIRC didn’t one of the parents say the ground was dry under the play equipment? I believe it was in one of SF’s documentary’s early on.
Don’t know if that was mentioned in Court though.
I recall that he also used the ‘pee’ excuse in his first conviction too, although I could be wrong.

 

[Mex]

There must be something in the procedures to warrant the move, I doubt the defence is winging it.

It is difficult not to think the "defence is winging it" considering they really don't have much else to bring to the court.

It is also worth bearing in mind that neither the prosecution nor the judge has summed up on the court proceedings as yet.
But they will.

Snip
The court will now hear from the other parties in the case before publishing its decision over whether to cancel the arrest warrant.
...
Sky News contacted the prosecutors in the case who said they could not comment.

MSN

 

[Anxala]

IIRC didn’t one of the parents say the ground was dry under the play equipment? I believe it was in one of SF’s documentary’s early on.
Don’t know if that was mentioned in Court though.
I recall that he also used the ‘pee’ excuse in his first conviction too, although I could be wrong.

I don't recall. Unfortunately we're, without court transcripts, at the mercy of reporting - even the good reporting from the German sources - that still leaves us very much out in the cold. It's very frustrating!

 

[Mex]

He was arrested on the spot but there's only the 11yr old's word for what he was doing. This was questioned in court where the defence IIRC argued that the 11yr old could have mistaken what she'd seen as CB masturbating and pleasuring himself as CB (possibly a drunken CB) just having a pee and then shaking himself dry. I know, it's a stretch, but I guess without any other witnessess to corroborate, the reliance solely upon an 11yr old's testimony is what the defence's focus is.

Germany/Portugal – *Charged (Oct. 11, 2022) & arrest warrant reinstated 11/18/22 – Ines VP (11 year old Portuguese girl) (pulled down his trousers & underpants & made masturbation movements on his naked penis in order to sexually arouse himself, until the frightened girl ran to her father for help. The suspect was arrested on the spot by the Portuguese police). Exposed himself in playpark, São Bartolomeu de Messines, June 11, 2017).

NB. I'm not questioning/doubting the girl's account of what she saw, just objectively looking at the evidence and the position the defence has taken here.

As to what FF is doing? He and his team are just doing the job they're there to do.

I don't see the problem here. The judge will decide what's what.

Nope - that was one of the quite succinctly put statements given in evidence in this trial in which the the young woman gave witness testimony from Portugal. As did her father who checked it out at the time.
We discussed this sometime in April in thread #3 and we also discussed her father's testimony that the ground underneath where CB was alleging to have peed, was bone dry.

 

[Mex]

IIRC didn’t one of the parents say the ground was dry under the play equipment? I believe it was in one of SF’s documentary’s early on.
Don’t know if that was mentioned in Court though.
I recall that he also used the ‘pee’ excuse in his first conviction too, although I could be wrong.

The father of the now young woman did testify in court to the fact that the ground under the chute where CB claimed to have peed was bone dry.

 

[C.greek]

Nope - that was one of the quite succinctly put statements given in evidence in this trial in which the the young woman gave witness testimony from Portugal. As did her father who checked it out at the time.
We discussed this sometime in April in thread #3 and we also discussed her father's testimony that the ground underneath where CB was alleging to have peed, was bone dry.

Even if he was 'peeing', he still exposed himself in a public space in front of children. So the charge of exposure still holds. Imo

 

[RichardKimble]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

BZ article April.

The witness continues to speak, to explain in detail what should have happened to her as a child: „ The man has lowered his pants. “ More specifically, she should explain: „ When I was smaller, I didn't know what he was doing. Today I know that he touched his tail. “ Further meticulously precise inquiries: What did it look like when the man touched the genital area, she can show it with her hands once. The witness cries: „ No, I don't want that. “ The interpreter from Portugal speaks out, saying that the woman may be traumatized. When asked, she later said that she had never used therapy because of the incident.

Fall Christian B.: Zeugin berichtet unter Tränen von Missbrauch

Der 47-jährige Christian B. soll sich im Juni 2017 vor einer 11-Jährigen selbstbefriedigt haben. In Braunschweig werden mehrere portugiesische Zeugen befragt.

www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de

 

[Mex]

Even if he was 'peeing', he still exposed himself in a public space in front of children. So the charge of exposure still holds. Imo

I agree with that. The children were exposed to seeing a sight they never should have been exposed to.

Also there is something perverse about disclosing choosing to pee in an area dedicated as a play area for children when quite obviously children were present. That in itself is disgusting.

 

[Anxala]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> BZ article April.

The witness continues to speak, to explain in detail what should have happened to her as a child: „ The man has lowered his pants. “ More specifically, she should explain: „ When I was smaller, I didn't know what he was doing. Today I know that he touched his tail. “ Further meticulously precise inquiries: What did it look like when the man touched the genital area, she can show it with her hands once. The witness cries: „ No, I don't want that. “ The interpreter from Portugal speaks out, saying that the woman may be traumatized. When asked, she later said that she had never used therapy because of the incident.

Fall Christian B.: Zeugin berichtet unter Tränen von Missbrauch

Der 47-jährige Christian B. soll sich im Juni 2017 vor einer 11-Jährigen selbstbefriedigt haben. In Braunschweig werden mehrere portugiesische Zeugen befragt.

www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de

Thanks for that. It explains the defence position and why the one charge that seemed cut and dried is now one that is riddled with exactly the same ambiguity as all the others are.

But it doesn't negate my earlier point that CB in a children's playground with his pants down and his <modsnip> in his hand remains all shades of wrong. And I know you'll agree with me on that, regardless of anything else.