On the surface, it looked like the one charge likely to incur a conviction but, at trial, the evidence just wasn't clear cut enough to pass the BARD test. The defence argument of a drunk CB caught short and peeing couldn't be discounted, particularly when there was only one witness and she, as an 11yr old, didn't know enough to be able to say with confidence that what he was doing was masturbating as opposed to the defence argument that he was merely shaking himself off after having a pee. CB's obviously guilty of exposing himself in a public place, there's no argument against that, just that there's no way of conclusively apportioning the intent the prosecution claimed on his part.
And that's what the judge has had to weigh up and come to a conclusion about. Which she has.
And as someone privy to all the background and evidence put forward in this trial, we need to trust her decision-making here and accept that the justice that we want delivered is being delivered.
Unless of course some don't like the turn this trial has taken and are now looking for reasons to question and discount her findings? Surely not? That would so not be in the spirit of wanting justice to be served.
The mother of one of the children CB allegedly masturbated in front of with his trousers around his ankles put it succinctly when explaining her horror at the implication.
Snip
“If he had snatched one of the children and put them in his van, we might never have seen them again.
“He could have gone anywhere. It’s still something that haunts me. I was left feeling very frightened. I think we were very lucky.”
“My daughter was eight at the time. He spoke to her in English and asked her, ‘What’s your name?’
“It’s very traumatic knowing that someone who’s been linked to so many cases and is perhaps a very dangerous man was so close to my little girl".
![www.mirror.co.uk](/forums/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fi2-prod.mirror.co.uk%2Fincoming%2Farticle22306176.ece%2FALTERNATES%2Fs1200%2F0_JS213101443.jpg&hash=eee4adbd9dccfbbf8c05d5cf69a276e6&return_error=1)
Mum claims Maddie suspect Christian Brueckner 'exposed himself' to her daughter
Brueckner was caught with his trousers down under a slide in San Bartolomeu de Messines, 40 miles from Praia da Luz, Portugal, where Madeleine McCann, three, went missing
![www.mirror.co.uk](/forums/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fs2-prod.mirror.co.uk%2F%40trinitymirrordigital%2Fdragonfly%2Faaeee24d9aa9913843eb769f279102b02b88a222%2Fimg%2Fmirror%2Ffavicons%2Ffavicon-32.png&hash=b24217510990fa7111d2fa0285fb7652&return_error=1)
Some may think that what occurred beneath the slide in the playground in San Bartolomeu de Messines is a lesser sexual crime.
It is not. It is a very serious crime indeed as the mother quoted above realised only too well.
CB was arrested by an off duty police officer and remanded in custody. Sexual offences of any kind are exceedingly difficult to prove even with slam dunk evidence of this calibre. How often is there a representative of law and order present at the scene of a crime while it is being committed and able to take charge of the situation??
Unfortunately the court position as it stands illustrates the difficulty for victims and prosecutors of serious sexual crimes. Some rape survivors don't report what happened to them; some don't have a choice when they end up as jane doe on a mortuary slab: the reality for women and sex crimes has not been enhanced here and one can appreciate why such attitudes lead to cases going unreported.
That is not justice - it is a rapist's charter
My opinion