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

[Davieson]

Thanks. There are a couple of bits to unwrap there. I think one should have alot of interest in whether or not CB gets locked up because the victims matter. I don’t think the prosecution have painted themselves in a negative light, they’re doing their best with what they have. That effort is a good thing imo because it gives the victims a chance of justice. It’s easy to fall into the trap of assuming that true crime will run similarly to a Netflix show. But rationally speaking, prosecuting cold cases that happened in another country isn’t going to be like an episode of suits.

There are typical patterns. Those who were following the GA line (pre 2020) are most likely to be scrutinising the BKA & prosecution now, often extending that to the other cases. Your comment about the differences between you & I, seems rather egotistical. This subject is polarising. Very rarely do you see a person who is unique & not following a typical line. Us included. My advice - don’t think of this as a personal battle or a ‘win’ & take everything into context.

Of course people are scrutinising the prosecution - they are the ones having the evidence to prove the case.
The defence get less public scrutiny because they don't have anything to prove, they just have to cast doubt on or refute each defence point.

I'l be content whatever the final decision is of the judges, but one must admit that the process of getting there is an interesting one.

 

[Davieson]

Of course people are scrutinising the prosecution - they are the ones having the evidence to prove the case.
The defence get less public scrutiny because they don't have anything to prove, they just have to cast doubt on or refute each defence point.

I'l be content whatever the final decision is of the judges, but one must admit that the process of getting there is an interesting one.

I meant, of course, each prosecution point

Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Mex]

Of course people are scrutinising the prosecution - they are the ones having the evidence to prove the case.
The defence get less public scrutiny because they don't have anything to prove, they just have to cast doubt on or refute each defence point.

I'l be content whatever the final decision is of the judges, but one must admit that the process of getting there is an interesting one.

Actually the defence has the evidence too under the inquisitorial system.

Snip
In both France and Germany the investigating magistrate will recommend a trial only if he is sure that there is sufficient evidence of guilt. The entire dossier of the pretrial proceedings is made available to the defense.

Inquisitorial procedure | Adversarial, Accused Rights & Evidence-Based

Inquisitorial procedure, in law, one of the two methods of exposing evidence in court (the other being the adversary procedure; q.v.). The inquisitorial system is typical of countries that base their legal systems on civil or Roman law. Under the inquisitorial procedure, the pretrial hearing for

www.britannica.com

Which makes the interim decision to withdraw the arrest warrant in the middle of the trial even stranger for those of us used to an adversarial trial system. Trials do sometimes collapse for various reasons but in this event, the trial continues.
Strange
My opinion

Forgot to mention that according to the above, should CB wish to speak that is fine but " if he does, he is not put under oath." Definitely quite different.

 

[Mex]

I meant, of course, each prosecution point

Sorry for any confusion.

Please check up on the differences between the adversarial system and the inquisitorial system of judgement.
The differences are quite profound.

I think you are comparing apples with oranges by misunderstanding everyone's role in the proceedings

 

[frank-cole]

Actually the defence has the evidence too under the inquisitorial system.

Snip
In both France and Germany the investigating magistrate will recommend a trial only if he is sure that there is sufficient evidence of guilt. The entire dossier of the pretrial proceedings is made available to the defense.

Inquisitorial procedure | Adversarial, Accused Rights & Evidence-Based

Inquisitorial procedure, in law, one of the two methods of exposing evidence in court (the other being the adversary procedure; q.v.). The inquisitorial system is typical of countries that base their legal systems on civil or Roman law. Under the inquisitorial procedure, the pretrial hearing for

www.britannica.com

Which makes the interim decision to withdraw the arrest warrant in the middle of the trial even stranger for those of us used to an adversarial trial system. Trials do sometimes collapse for various reasons but in this event, the trial continues.
Strange
My opinion

Forgot to mention that according to the above, should CB wish to speak that is fine but " if he does, he is not put under oath." Definitely quite different.

IMO this is why this is going to boil on for a long time under various appeals.

The evidence heard thus far has been very circumstantial, however it is quite telling that FF has gone after the admissibility of the usb evidence. It seems he’ll probably win that motion. Prosecuting cold cases isn’t akin to TV lawyer drama.

If they appeal I think they’ll want the balance of reaching the truth to be weighed up against CB’s humans rights. If a BKA dog Walker is the basis of a successful motion to prevent a rape victim from having all of their evidence heard, then I’m pretty sure the prosecution will have good grounds to escalate this. I doubt even the most reluctant of casual observers would want such a motion to pass.

 

[Davieson]

Is it normal practice in Germany for the prosecution to appeal against an acquittal/case dismissal ?

 

[Davieson]

IMO this is why this is going to boil on for a long time under various appeals.

The evidence heard thus far has been very circumstantial, however it is quite telling that FF has gone after the admissibility of the usb evidence. It seems he’ll probably win that motion. Prosecuting cold cases isn’t akin to TV lawyer drama.

If they appeal I think they’ll want the balance of reaching the truth to be weighed up against CB’s humans rights. If a BKA dog Walker is the basis of a successful motion to prevent a rape victim from having all of their evidence heard, then I’m pretty sure the prosecution will have good grounds to escalate this. I doubt even the most reluctant of casual observers would want such a motion to pass.

That wouldn't be a surprise considering that the USBs have nothing to do with the current cases being tried.

 

[frank-cole]

Of course people are scrutinising the prosecution - they are the ones having the evidence to prove the case.
The defence get less public scrutiny because they don't have anything to prove, they just have to cast doubt on or refute each defence point.

I'l be content whatever the final decision is of the judges, but one must admit that the process of getting there is an interesting one.

That wouldn't be a surprise considering that the USBs have nothing to do with the current cases being tried.

I disagree. Winning a motion of admissibility doesn’t depreciate the value of the evidence. FF likely found a technicality. If the usb had nothing to do with the cases it wouldn’t have been admitted as evidence in the first place. If it had no significance the defence wouldn’t be arguing its admissibility. You might wanna think this one through!

 

[Davieson]

I disagree. Winning a motion of admissibility doesn’t depreciate the value of the evidence. FF likely found a technicality. If the usb had nothing to do with the cases it wouldn’t have been admitted as evidence in the first place. If it had no significance the defence wouldn’t be arguing its admissibility. You might wanna think this one through!

Prosecution maybe thought it relevant. Defence didn't. What will the judges say ?

 

[Mex]

I disagree. Winning a motion of admissibility doesn’t depreciate the value of the evidence. FF likely found a technicality. If the usb had nothing to do with the cases it wouldn’t have been admitted as evidence in the first place. If it had no significance the defence wouldn’t be arguing its admissibility. You might wanna think this one through!

I agree with what you say. Which in effect displays just exactly what a train wreck this trial has become; the impression being that the MM case dominates the five trials which should rightfully be the focus of this trial.

This is proven by

• private detectives employed by MM's parents being called to give evidence
• BKA investigators in the MM case being called to give evidence
• SY investigators working on the MM case being called to give evidence
• Questions arising from the legal status of evidence collected for the MM case and that of other missing children
• the legality of alleged wiretapping with absolutely no locus in the five sexual cases under trial

Those are a few off the top of my head; but I'm sure there must be more where the MM case for which no charges have even been made as yet are the feature and not the five cases which should be the business of the court.

Basically what has been introduced in this court is quite often at variance with the way trials are supposed to be conducted and is all wrong.
My opinion

1. Admissibility of Evidence:
In Germany, evidence must satisfy certain criteria to be admissible in court. The primary criterion is relevance – the evidence must be directly related to the facts in dispute. Additionally, evidence must be legally obtained and not violate the principles of fairness. For example, evidence obtained through illegal wiretapping would generally be considered inadmissible.
...
Relevance: One of the essential principles in German evidence law is that evidence must be relevant to the case at hand. Only evidence that has a direct connection to the facts in dispute will be considered admissible.

Understanding the Principles of Evidence Law in Germany ▷ Cases - Rey Abogado

⚡Hello and welcome to this informative article on Understanding the Principles of Evidence Law in Germany! Before we dive into the fascinating world of ▷ Cases

reyabogado.com

 

[frank-cole]

Prosecution maybe thought it relevant. Defence didn't. What will the judges say ?

The judge will likely be ruling on its admissibility. FF’s game plan is to attack the admissibility on each thread of evidence, clustering the proceedings with countless motions. It’s been a clever defence, especially in a local court that may not be well versed in facing it.
If it wasn’t significant the prosecution wouldn’t have admitted it as evidence & the defence wouldn’t have been so quick to attack its admissibility.

IMO - acquittals will be born out of technicalities & admissibilities - appeals will try to unlock them. It won’t prevent the feigning of ‘factually innocent’ though…..

 

[Anxala]

Thanks. There are a couple of bits to unwrap there. I think one should have alot of interest in whether or not CB gets locked up because the victims matter. I don’t think the prosecution have painted themselves in a negative light, they’re doing their best with what they have. That effort is a good thing imo because it gives the victims a chance of justice. It’s easy to fall into the trap of assuming that true crime will run similarly to a Netflix show. But rationally speaking, prosecuting cold cases that happened in another country isn’t going to be like an episode of suits.

There are typical patterns. Those who were following the GA line (pre 2020) are most likely to be scrutinising the BKA & prosecution now, often extending that to the other cases. Your comment about the differences between you & I, seems rather egotistical. This subject is polarising. Very rarely do you see a person who is unique & not following a typical line. Us included. My advice - don’t think of this as a personal battle or a ‘win’ & take everything into context.

Again, just proving my earlier point that you're too busy deflecting, denying the prosecution's now very clear shortcomings and telling the rest of us not alone what our agenda is, but also how we should engage with this trial and what our concerns should be. As if we're too 'Suits and Netflix' dumb to understand that real life is not tv life and need you and your ^ ridiculously condescending claptrap to guide us and point us in the right direction.

I won't be responding further. All the best.

 

[frank-cole]

Again, just proving my earlier point that you're too busy deflecting, denying the prosecution's now very clear shortcomings and telling the rest of us not alone what our agenda is, but also how we should engage with this trial and what our concerns should be. As if we're too 'Suits and Netflix' dumb to understand that real life is not tv life and need you and your ^ ridiculously condescending claptrap to guide us and point us in the right direction.

I won't be responding further. All the best.

Thank you. It’s about taking things into context & not living in a world where everything has to be the way you expect it to be.

The suits reference was, in part…,to highlight that expecting some ironclad showstopper evidence without taking in the context that these are cold cases over a decade old - is nonsensical. The prosecution aren’t antagonists in a novel, they’re doing their best. Typically, those taking issue with & looking for issues with the prosecutors - followed the GA line well before the Germans even came around. It’s a simple link & very clear. I’m guessing that’ll apply to you too.

There’s an old expression along the lines of “if you’re going to dish it out…..