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

[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.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Not sure I agree with that

Historic sex offences are very difficult to prove.

I know this is boring, but we should really wait to read the Court's opinion on the evidence before we reach any conclusions.

 

[Mex]

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.

Prosecutors do not act independently from the judiciary. Probably as with trials in any jurisdiction the prosecutors present the evidence to the court - in this instance - the regional court in Braunschweig.
The courts and their judges make the decision to prosecute or not; absolutely not the prosecutor's office.

It is puzzling that you appear to advocate that once prosecutors find evidence tying a suspect to criminal activity featuring in this instance CB, they are being incompetent by indicting him.

Do you consider it appropriate for police and prosecutors to be considered incompetent for indicting suspects for evidence based sexual crimes.
Is this your opinion regarding all violent sexual crimes perpetrated by known rapists and abusers or do you consider it applicable only to CB.

The tone adopted is very dismissive of the work carried out by the agents of law and order. In particular with regard to abhorrent cold case sexual crimes. Therefore the question of whether this is a blanket covering of the opinion encompassing all perpetrators or one who has become a cause celebre.

Aligning oneself with those who are paid to debunk witness testimony in such cases is gross enough; for example the blue eyed example of identification. And there is a definite conundrum there regarding the sum of the whole.
My opinion

 

[Mex]

Not sure I agree with that

Historic sex offences are very difficult to prove.

I know this is boring, but we should really wait to read the Court's opinion on the evidence before we reach any conclusions.

I agree with that sentiment with the caveat that we are never going to find out in its entirety what will have passed during each step of the way, particularly if this trial continues at the current pace.

There is no transcript and the dropping of the arrest warrant in itself leaves a lot still open for explanation.

 

[Davieson]

Not sure I agree with that

Historic sex offences are very difficult to prove.

I know this is boring, but we should really wait to read the Court's opinion on the evidence before we reach any conclusions.

As this is the case, one might expect the prosecution to have concentrated on a single case for which they had strong evidence instead of bundling unrelated cases together in the hope that something might stick.

 

[Dave55]

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.

I don't see it as the prosections fault if a random police officer searched the box factory without getting a search warrant. That would explain how the Germans have the evidence but cannot take the case to trial. I seem to remember that whilst CB was on bail for assaulting a child he assaulted another.

Ig CB is freed I doubt he won't offend again...so will eventually find himself back in court.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I don't see it as the prosections fault if a random police officer searched the box factory without getting a search warrant. That would explain how the Germans have the evidence but cannot take the case to trial. I seem to remember that whilst CB was on bail for assaulting a child he assaulted another.

Ig CB is freed I doubt he won't offend again...so will eventually find himself back in court.

The evidence came in to the possession of the prosecutors because a random police officer searched the box factory without a warrant. Without this happening, there is no box factory evidence.

It’s all so dodgy. The police officer was obviously snooping on her strange neighbour and probably did a background check. She puts two and two together and gets five with the IG case. No evidence for that but someone else gave up his name for MM - Bingo!

 

[Davieson]

The evidence came in to the possession of the prosecutors because a random police officer searched the box factory without a warrant. Without this happening, there is no box factory evidence.

It’s all so dodgy. The police officer was obviously snooping on her strange neighbour and probably did a background check. She puts two and two together and gets five with the IG case. No evidence for that but someone else gave up his name for MM - Bingo!

Something odd there to my mind, because OG were given only CB's name in connection with MM in 2017 and yet were apparently brought in by BKA in 2016 when the 'official' Box factory search was made.
Why would that be ?

 

[Mex]

As this is the case, one might expect the prosecution to have concentrated on a single case for which they had strong evidence instead of bundling unrelated cases together in the hope that something might stick.

Each case was presented on its merit; I would be astounded if during the time frame there were not other cases worthy of an indictment but for which there wasn't the available evidence to do so.

The difficulties presented by the lifestyle of the perpetrator of DM's rape with its forensic evidence in place for fourteen years is an example.
Only when a name was put to an erstwhile anonymous perpetrator did DM receive justice.
My opinion

 

[Mex]

The evidence came in to the possession of the prosecutors because a random police officer searched the box factory without a warrant. Without this happening, there is no box factory evidence.

It’s all so dodgy. The police officer was obviously snooping on her strange neighbour and probably did a background check. She puts two and two together and gets five with the IG case. No evidence for that but someone else gave up his name for MM - Bingo!

Absolutely nothing there which is of relevance to any one of the five indictments for which CB is on trial.
Why did the defence think it worth raising the issue.

 

[Mex]

Something odd there to my mind, because OG were given only CB's name in connection with MM in 2017 and yet were apparently brought in by BKA in 2016 when the 'official' Box factory search was made.
Why would that be ?

There are more missing children than MM and CB has featured in the investigations into some of them
Snip
A lawyer representing her family said CB stayed at the house in May 2015 and one day before Inga disappeared, police records place him in a nearby motorway service station where he had a parking accident.

He is believed to have commuted by car between the property in Neuwegersleben and Braunschweig, around 35 miles away.
...
He had been convicted for child sex abuse for the first time in 1994, and in 2016 he was convicted for child sex abuse and possessing indecent images.

Madeleine McCann suspect investigated over 2015 disappearance of German girl

Inga Gehricke, five, went missing while collecting wood for a campfire in the district where Christian Brueckner was living

www.independent.co.uk

No mystery why a recidivist abuser remains of interest to police investigators.

 

[mrjitty]

The evidence came in to the possession of the prosecutors because a random police officer searched the box factory without a warrant. Without this happening, there is no box factory evidence.

It’s all so dodgy. The police officer was obviously snooping on her strange neighbour and probably did a background check. She puts two and two together and gets five with the IG case. No evidence for that but someone else gave up his name for MM - Bingo!

What sticks out to me is that post 2020, media stories appeared about how CB was now being linked to IG

But now we know he was incorrectly linked to IG in 2016 but nothing was found via the potentially illegal search.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

What sticks out to me is that post 2020, media stories appeared about how CB was now being linked to IG

But now we know he was incorrectly linked to IG in 2016 but nothing was found via the potentially illegal search.

In the initial maelstrom of reporting CB was linked to perhaps half a dozen missing people or murders - all except MM have gone quiet. Call me cynical but I wonder why connections were made to these other crimes in the media. It seems as though they could have been intentionally leaked. IG was one of these crimes but IIRC it was the first one to be dismissed in the media. I recall it being reported that he had been investigated for her disappearance but had been ruled out.

 

[RichardKimble]

What sticks out to me is that post 2020, media stories appeared about how CB was now being linked to IG

But now we know he was incorrectly linked to IG in 2016 but nothing was found via the potentially illegal search.

He was never linked to IG according to this BZ article.

Christian B. was never a suspect in the Inga case, which the Stendal public prosecutor confirmed to our editorial team. The witness also says: There was no initial suspicion, „but there are still colleagues who believe that he must have something to do with the disappearance.

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

 

[frank-cole]

There are more missing children than MM and CB has featured in the investigations into some of them
Snip
A lawyer representing her family said CB stayed at the house in May 2015 and one day before Inga disappeared, police records place him in a nearby motorway service station where he had a parking accident.

He is believed to have commuted by car between the property in Neuwegersleben and Braunschweig, around 35 miles away.
...
He had been convicted for child sex abuse for the first time in 1994, and in 2016 he was convicted for child sex abuse and possessing indecent images.

Madeleine McCann suspect investigated over 2015 disappearance of German girl

Inga Gehricke, five, went missing while collecting wood for a campfire in the district where Christian Brueckner was living

www.independent.co.uk

No mystery why a recidivist abuser remains of interest to police investigators.

I think the Inge case & CB’s involvement gives a perspective on reality.

There can only be reason they aren't running an investigation into CB for Inge’s disappearance but are running an investigation into Madeleine’s investigation - evidence.

 

[Davieson]

Another difference is different court jurisdiction, therefore different prosecutors.
Perhaps they recognise a dead horse when they see one.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

If anyone knows, did the main judge in this current trial preside over any other "high profile" cases that were reported in the media?