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

[Davieson]

According to a BZ article in June it was expected the court would agree to the defence in not including it.This was after hearing of the search without a warrant and a police womans boyfriend walking a dog on private property and the policewoman herself taking pictures without permission.

Maddie-Verdächtiger – Ermittler wollten Razzia fingieren

22. Prozesstag: Auf der Suche nach der vermissten Inga Gehricke geriet 2015 Christian B. in Verdacht. Die Polizei war offenkundig bereit, Gesetze zu übertreten. Das hat Folgen für die Beweisaufnahme im laufenden Prozess.

www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de

If the reports are anything like correct, it suggests some very underhand police work

 

[RichardKimble]

If the reports are anything like correct, it suggests some very underhand police work

We can only go with which is reported.

 

[frank-cole]

Too many professional reputations on the line and not enough evidence for CB to be charged for anything to do with MM. I really hope it happens but I fear it’s a snowball’s chance in hell currently.

Interesting. I think stranger abduction was always the only plausible scenario. I don’t see a sensible hypothesis to the contrary.

I have no doubt that CB was solely responsible. I think there’ll be a few investigative-to-prosecutorial challenges. Whether they have enough, whether what they have is free of trivial (yet destructive) technicalities & whether the main evidence is absolute proof of death. You & I both know that even the most incriminating evidence won’t convince some people, though.

 

[Dave55]

Not particularly - I’ll accept the final conclusions to these cases & move on. We know that FF has put in many motions to challenge how evidence was collected. As somebody who is pro-victim, i think would be a big shame if evidence in their cases was blocked from being used. That said - I don’t think there’ll be any opportunity to effectively feign doubt in the MM case because theyll likely announce a summary of what they have when they announce charges.If the evidence is compelling & they make that public - we’ll all finally be on the same page (hmm). Doesn’t mean the admissibility can’t be challenged, though.

My opinion

The point is that if he is found not guilty we do not have to accept he's innocent. That might not be a popular point of view but that's the way it is

 

[Davieson]

The point is that if he is found not guilty we do not have to accept he's innocent. That might not be a popular point of view but that's the way it is

Of course you don't, but I don't suppose CB will lose any sleep over that, if that happens to be the outcome.

 

[frank-cole]

The point is that if he is found not guilty we do not have to accept he's innocent. That might not be a popular point of view but that's the way it is

Agree. I think the majority will accept it yet still understand that it’s highly unlikely that he is factually innocent. However, ‘not guilty’ verdicts will undoubtedly be used to amplify professed issues with the prosecution & then to discredit them in the MM case, for obvious reasons.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

The point is that if he is found not guilty we do not have to accept he's innocent. That might not be a popular point of view but that's the way it is

If that happens, it’s the responsibility of the prosecution who took the cases to trial without being able to prove guilt. It’s not the fault of the judge, who will assess the evidence vs the codified rules of the crime and make the judgement.

If we can’t agree on anything else, we should all agree that the prosecution are crapola. Then through that lens reassess if CB is responsible for MM’s disappearance.