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

[Davieson]

I’m aware of the current situation and it’s possible outcome I just find it
extremely frustrating given how it started , what was discovered and CB left it there.Illegal or legal the result is the same and the thought of somebody not being brought to justice or the contents of materials found not heard in a court are unacceptable. IMO

I don't share your frustration.
The law is how it is for a good reason and that is that police officers must carry out their investigations within the law.
Think how it would be if officers acted outside the law and fitted people up because they 'know they're a wrong un, or to massage conviction statistics, or to further their own career.

 

[JB1510]

I’m sure you’re not frustrated, no one is fitting CB up or do you think he’s a scapegoat?

 

[Davieson]

I’m sure you’re not frustrated, no one is fitting CB up or do you think he’s a scapegoat?

One doesn't know what the truth of the matter is, though from what one reads it appears that the BKA have indulged in some underhand practices that the judge is less than happy with.
As far as I can see, the box factory evidence has no bearing on the current trial and there should be no reason to even bring it into court proceedings.

 

[UK Girl]

All extremely frustrating technicalities at the moment. The findings at the box factory were initially borne from a hunch a local policewoman had stemming from a stolen Braunschweig trailer ending up at the box factory.CB was not manipulated or coerced .The other and most important part is that CB hid the worst type of csa under the body of his dead dog in the hope it would never be found. It was , how that can be dismissed is unacceptable.

the problem is she had no search warrant and appears to have made up the story of the dog running onto his property. It is shocking to me that a Judge has to shout at her to make her tell the truth. Someone whose job it is to uphold the law. Had they done this all properly then maybe the evidence could have been used. The other issue with her going in the way she did his defence could maybe argue things were put there before the second search.

 

[RichardKimble]

One doesn't know what the truth of the matter is, though from what one reads it appears that the BKA have indulged in some underhand practices that the judge is less than happy with.
As far as I can see, the box factory evidence has no bearing on the current trial and there should be no reason to even bring it into court proceedings.

Quite, the prosecution obviously had it listed as evidence, the defence have challenged now it's down to the judge .Perhaps the cases are not as strong the prosecution have us believe.

 

[Anxala]

I don't share your frustration. The law is how it is for a good reason and that is that police officers must carry out their investigations within the law. Think how it would be if officers acted outside the law and fitted people up because they 'know they're a wrong un, or to massage conviction statistics, or to further their own career.

Me neither. And certainly not what appears to be the frustration/anger directed at the defence?

The defence is not responsible for the BKA's earlier abject failure to work within the law;
The defence is not responsible for CB potentially getting away with an historic crime he should have been charged and convicted for;
The defence is not responsible for the ham-fisted mess of ineptitude the prosecution has served up in this current trial and no amount of 'but CB's a sick pervert!!' whataboutery can change that.

That all the ducks in a row that the prosecution claimed to have in these 5 cases against CB are in danger of being shot down one by one by a judge who's clearly paying way more attention to good legal practice than the prosecution ever did is not the defence's fault. All the lame if not actually now dead ducks lie solidly at the feet of the BKA and the prosecution.

If we're here for justice to be served, then that's who and where the frustration and anger needs to be directed at.

 

[JB1510]

Not saying I’m blaming the defence and it’s to be expected that legal requirements be scrutinised.As far as we know no manipulation or coercive tactics were used in finding this evidence . Yes you are correct it should have been performed correctly.However a female police woman looking for a missing child had a hunch about CB and she was proved right
maybe nothing to do with MM , IG and at the very least a stash of filth hidden by “but CB’s a sick pervert “ buried under his dead dog.

 

[UK Girl]

Not saying I’m blaming the defence and it’s to be expected that legal requirements be scrutinised.As far as we know no manipulation or coercive tactics were used in finding this evidence . Yes you are correct it should have been performed correctly.However a female police woman looking for a missing child had a hunch about CB and she was proved right
maybe nothing to do with MM , IG and at the very least a stash of filth hidden by “but CB’s a sick pervert “ buried under his dead dog.

but it was still illegal. Apparently she wasnt meant to go on the property or take photos...or take the item or lie in court. The Judge has concerns about anything and tbh it isnt the defences fault that she is lieing in court. That is on her tbh. You also have the issue that she takes things but she cant prove she didnt put anything else there and now even if she was proven right they most likely are useless due to her actions.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Not saying I’m blaming the defence and it’s to be expected that legal requirements be scrutinised.As far as we know no manipulation or coercive tactics were used in finding this evidence . Yes you are correct it should have been performed correctly.However a female police woman looking for a missing child had a hunch about CB and she was proved right
maybe nothing to do with MM , IG and at the very least a stash of filth hidden by “but CB’s a sick pervert “ buried under his dead dog.

I would have no issue with CB facing a trial for possessing and selling CSA material. If the authorities have evidence to obtain a conviction, all well and good. It’s really no revelation that CB is a paedo who creates and owns CSA material - he has convictions for it.

But this is not what we are talking about. He has been brought to trial for five other crimes and publicly convicted of child murder in the media in another crime.

The problem with this is that the media reports have not, so far, presented strong evidence that he has committed these crimes. Worse still, they show that the BKA were prepared to obtain evidence illegally. It is utterly unconvincing, IMO, that CB committed four out of these five crimes. Time will tell if he is convicted.

My position is that these crimes form part of an investigation that also includes MM - the BKA has only one investigation into CB. Given the poor quality and likely inadmissibility of the evidence in this investigation, I find the public statements of HCW to be extremely problematic. From what we have seen, I do not think the BKA have unequivocal evidence that CB killed MM and therefore, HCW’s media statements are completely unjustified.

 

[C.greek]

I would have no issue with CB facing a trial for possessing and selling CSA material. If the authorities have evidence to obtain a conviction, all well and good. It’s really no revelation that CB is a paedo who creates and owns CSA material - he has convictions for it.

But this is not what we are talking about. He has been brought to trial for five other crimes and publicly convicted of child murder in the media in another crime.

The problem with this is that the media reports have not, so far, presented strong evidence that he has committed these crimes. Worse still, they show that the BKA were prepared to obtain evidence illegally. It is utterly unconvincing, IMO, that CB committed four out of these five crimes. Time will tell if he is convicted.

My position is that these crimes form part of an investigation that also includes MM - the BKA has only one investigation into CB. Given the poor quality and likely inadmissibility of the evidence in this investigation, I find the public statements of HCW to be extremely problematic. From what we have seen, I do not think the BKA have unequivocal evidence that CB killed MM and therefore, HCW’s media statements are completely unjustified.

We don't know what there is in these email accounts nor in the hard drive. CB most certainly committed 2 out of these 5 crimes (those involving children). As to the other two rapes seen on video, I would again lean on him having committed them. The witnesses could not have made it up - too many details that aligned with DM's rape. The defence is doing its job but these technicalities do not convince me that CB is not related to MM 's case or to HB's ordeal. Jmo

 

[RichardKimble]

We don't know what there is in these email accounts nor in the hard drive. CB most certainly committed 2 out of these 5 crimes (those involving children). As to the other two rapes seen on video, I would again lean on him having committed them. The witnesses could not have made it up - too many details that aligned with DM's rape. The defence is doing its job but these technicalities do not convince me that CB is not related to MM 's case or to HB's ordeal. Jmo

Not too sure on the witnesses, seems as if from the German paywalled articles there seems to be contradictions between them highlighted by the judge.

 

[mrjitty]

The thing about illegal searches is that it is a long standing principle that the fruits of an illegal search will be thrown out and you can't use them. This applies to all the fruit of the poisonous tree

Fruit of the poisonous trees is a doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained. As the metaphor suggests, if the evidential "tree" is tainted, so is its "fruit."

There is good reason for this with search warrants, as otherwise LE would conduct illegal searches on trumped up probable cause or just no grounds at all, and say no harm no foul if they don't find anything, or justify it based on what they do find, even if nothing to do with the crime being investigated.

In the current case, there was nothing approaching probable cause against CB to justify a search in the IG investigation. Thus evidence will normally be thrown out to teach LE a lesson. If you don't do this, they will tend to conduct illegal searches. Yes it sucks that incriminating evidence is now lost - but this is a necessary constitutional protection.

The officer who did this was very very stupid. Imagine if they actually did find evidence in the IG case, then couldn't use it.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Not saying I’m blaming the defence and it’s to be expected that legal requirements be scrutinised.As far as we know no manipulation or coercive tactics were used in finding this evidence . Yes you are correct it should have been performed correctly.However a female police woman looking for a missing child had a hunch about CB and she was proved right
maybe nothing to do with MM , IG and at the very least a stash of filth hidden by “but CB’s a sick pervert “ buried under his dead dog.

We don't allow the police to search private property based on hunches. MOO

 

[mrjitty]

We don't know what there is in these email accounts nor in the hard drive. CB most certainly committed 2 out of these 5 crimes (those involving children). As to the other two rapes seen on video, I would again lean on him having committed them. The witnesses could not have made it up - too many details that aligned with DM's rape. The defence is doing its job but these technicalities do not convince me that CB is not related to MM 's case or to HB's ordeal. Jmo

I also lean towards guilty on the videos based on the Judge's findings in the DM case, which I imagine stand as determinations for the purposes of this case - however i wonder if the burden of proof is met. There seems to be some technical questions which the Judge will need to explore. Like how determinative are the previous findings?

MOO

 

[JB1510]

We don't allow the police to search private property based on hunches. MOO

I get that under normal circumstances but when a child is missing I just think she thought she was doing the right thing and her hunch was spot on

 

[UK Girl]

Th

I get that under normal circumstances but when a child is missing I just think she thought she was doing the right thing and her hunch was spot on

Then it's a pity her hunch didn't make her do the correct and legal thing

 

[johnlair]

Thought she searched the place on report of a stench coming from it, that's when the dog was discovered and his collection of child abuse videos underneath

 

[Denis R Tandib]

We don't know what there is in these email accounts nor in the hard drive. CB most certainly committed 2 out of these 5 crimes (those involving children). As to the other two rapes seen on video, I would again lean on him having committed them. The witnesses could not have made it up - too many details that aligned with DM's rape. The defence is doing its job but these technicalities do not convince me that CB is not related to MM 's case or to HB's ordeal. Jmo

I haven’t read anything in years that suggests CB is related to MM.

There is only HeB’s statement - which is pretty weak - that has put CB in the frame for MM’s disappearance.

 

[UK Girl]

Thought she searched the place on report of a stench coming from it, that's when the dog was discovered and his collection of child abuse videos underneath

according to the reports in the news paper that was all pretty much disputed and it appears that she made that up JMO

 

[mrjitty]

I get that under normal circumstances but when a child is missing I just think she thought she was doing the right thing and her hunch was spot on

Sure - but her hunch wasn't correct. CB had nothing to do with IG. Then they found evidence of other crimes they want to use in a completely different case. We can't allow the police to conduct lots of illegal searches and then justify it because they sometimes find something. How many other illegal searches did this office carry out? I bet it's not the first

IMO