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

[Denis R Tandib]

Well, CB was already a person of interest in 2013. Someone else had come forward to the police about him. Then, according to what they said in court, there is one email account of CB that is related to MM's case. We have no idea what this email account is about. He was also in the area at the time. These we know for certain. Also that he is a convicted pedophile with horrible fantasies about children whom he would make disappear afterwards (from the Skype chat). These paint a picture of someone capable of doing it, with the opportunity that arose. But these should be in the MM thread imo

The info from 2013 was provided by OG. This doesn’t mean someone came forward, it just means they were looking at people closely in the files.

In PDL area… well yes, he lived there.

If I fantasise about having a Bentley, it doesn’t mean I’m capable of owning one.

What we can be certain of is that any emails in the possession of the BKA do not give proof the CB abducted and killed MM, or he would have been charged.

There’s HeB’s statement and a load of coincidences which create a good narrative.

 

[misty48]

It’s unlikely a different judge would have a different view about the same illegally found evidence.

Isn't it down to the judge's discretion as to whether any evidence of a different serious crime found by chance during an illegal search in another case can be used by prosecution?

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Sorry if it came across the wrong way. My objection to this reasoning is survivor bias. We never get to see other cases where the officer's hunch was wrong. Then in this case, finding something completely unrelated, is used to justify the means. But if you conduct illegal searches of 'dodgy people', you will find evidence of crimes some of the time.

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 ?

My understanding is these kinds of factual rulings are definitive - you don't get to re-litigate parts of cases over and over until you get a different result. But i don't know german law so ...

MOO

 

[UK Girl]

Isn't it down to the judge's discretion as to whether any evidence of a different serious crime found by chance during an illegal search in another case can be used by prosecution?

it would still be illegally obtained though thats the problem

 

[mrjitty]

Isn't it down to the judge's discretion as to whether any evidence of a different serious crime found by chance during an illegal search in another case can be used by prosecution?

Just as a general point, legal systems tend to follow precedent for efficiency. So if a court determines a matter, later courts would tend to take notice - there is no point rehearing the same facts again and again. But that is wild speculation as to whether a later criminal court would have to exclude the same evidence.

 

[Anxala]

So we don't really know... eta: that is why I think we should not be saying there are contradictions about the videos' content. And the age of the victim is really relative. You judge people's age differently as you age.

^ Sorry, can't let that one pass. MS gave evidence in 2019. That's barely 5 years ago. If it were 10/15 years ago, age judgement might apply but not in the short space of 5 years. It is a contradiction. What relevance it will have ultimately I don't know but the judge picked up on it and I think we need to trust the judge here and not dismiss or play down things that she regards as relevant/important to the cases she's presiding over.

 

[Anxala]

it would still be illegally obtained though thats the problem

If it's thrown out on the basis that it fails to meet legal requirements, I can't see it ever being allowed to be re-presented in a future case against CB, should he ever be charged in the MM case. The history of how it was obtained can't be changed or made more legally acceptable.

 

[misty48]

If it's thrown out on the basis that it fails to meet legal requirements, I can't see it ever being allowed to be re-presented in a future case against CB, should he ever be charged in the MM case. The history of how it was obtained can't be changed or made more legally acceptable.

Wasn't the same data on the (illegally acquired) USB's also found on the hard drive handed over by someone to BKA in Portugal?

 

[Davieson]

Wasn't the same data on the (illegally acquired) USB's also found on the hard drive handed over by someone to BKA in Portugal?

Was it ? Whats the source for that being on the hard drive ?

 

[UK Girl]

Was it ? Whats the source for that ?

there appears to be issues with the HD also

 

[RichardKimble]

How did the tapes that HeB and MS saw come to them ? Part of the trial is allowing testimony about them, but I guess when LE officers are conducting operations outside of their remit and position then they are called into question.

 

[misty48]

Was it ? Whats the source for that being on the hard drive ?

Madeleine McCann suspect's emails 'link him to case': investigators

The shock revelation is the first time an official working on the case has claimed to have evidence connecting Brueckner to the 2007 disappearance of Madeleine McCann

www.dailymail.co.uk

The "mother and daughter" story.

 

[UK Girl]

How did the tapes that HeB and MS saw come to them ? Part of the trial is allowing them.

the tapes didnt come to the BKA. It is just word of mouth really from people who claim they saw them.

 

[RichardKimble]

the tapes didnt come to the BKA. It is just word of mouth really from people who claim they saw them.

I was referring to how HeB got them,

 

[UK Girl]

I was referring to how HeB got them,

didnt he take them from Brueckners?

 

[RichardKimble]

didnt he take them from Brueckners?

Yes he stole them, the difference being I'd surmise and I edited the other post, is that a LE officer should not act outside their remit and above their station in conducting their own investigation.

 

[C.greek]

Yes he stole them, the difference being I'd surmise and I edited the other post, is that a LE officer should not act outside their remit and above their station in conducting their own investigation.

Hypothetically speaking, if these tapes were actually handed over to LE, would they be considered illegally acquired and thus dismissed?

 

[C.greek]

^ Sorry, can't let that one pass. MS gave evidence in 2019. That's barely 5 years ago. If it were 10/15 years ago, age judgement might apply but not in the short space of 5 years. It is a contradiction. What relevance it will have ultimately I don't know but the judge picked up on it and I think we need to trust the judge here and not dismiss or play down things that she regards as relevant/important to the cases she's presiding over.

Actually, we don't know if the judge picked up on it. I haven't read anywhere that this was the case. The defense might have but I haven't read that the judge did. Eta Well 5 years is 5 years. It is different being in your 40s and in your 50s into how you judge people's age. But this is all speculation. Perhaps we need someone with knowledge of age perception to chip in.

Eta i don't recall the so-called contradiction, but if he said she looked 50 5 years ago and now he says she looked 80, well yes I would agree there is something amiss. Even him being ill.

 

[RichardKimble]

Hypothetically speaking, if these tapes were actually handed over to LE, would they be considered illegally acquired and thus dismissed?

I wouldn't know.

 

[Davieson]

Hypothetically speaking, if these tapes were actually handed over to LE, would they be considered illegally acquired and thus dismissed?

Handed over by whom ?