Germany/Portugal - Christian Brueckner, 27 @ time of 1st crime (2004), charged with sexual assault crimes, Praia de Rocha, Portugal. #5

[UK Girl]

Disagree. The MO Diane described, the MO Hazel described & the accounts of what the witnesses saw on tape are all very similar. That’s before we even get in to what CB wrote about & what he apparently said to his ex cell-mate.

One can look at the totality or one can attempt to argue every circumstance in isolation. This is polarising because of the point of view behind it.

The issue is - even though I was at the biscuit tin each of the 10 times, my wife can’t prove it was me. Highly unlikely my presence was 10 isolated coincidences but perhaps not enough for my wife to be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn’t mean I didn’t eat all the biscuits.

the problem is the two witnesses who claimed they saw what they did on the tapes - one committed perjury during this trial and the other admitted they did in the 2019 trial which brings their supposed evidence into question tbh. You also have the fact that one at least had different versions apparently from the original statement and the other seemed a hostile witness.

 

[Davieson]

I agree in part. That’s the nature of cold case, especially in absence of forensics.

I think it’s likely the judges may go with the defence & then we’ll move to debating conflating legally innocent with factually innocent. Which is good sleuth(y) debating.
I don’t think they’ll make their move in the MM case until any appeals have ended.

The 30-50% chance he’d reoffend within 2 years alarms me. Away from the typical back & fourths -From a pro-victim perspective I am hoping that this all ends in an indeterminate prison sentence because I think the risk is very high. I also think that will also increase the prospect of a full MM confession within the next few years.

This is only the opinion of a single person who had no contact with CB. It may or may not be valid. I would prefer to see the opinions of a wider group of experts, rather than just one.

I shall not be debating or disputing the judge's decision, whatever it may be.

 

[Mex]

Apart from which, describing the Defence as attacking - attacking! - the witnesses is beyond comical and indicates a complete lack of understanding as to what the role of the defence is in a trial.

Back in the real world, questioning and holding up to the light witness statements and testimony is the job the defence is there to do. As most of us know and accept as part of the process of justice being served. And that's exactly what they did.

Interesting differing viewpoints on the role of the defence in this particular trial.

I vehemently disagree that the role of the defence is to systematically dismantle the character of the witness.

By all means tear the evidence to shreds but do please make the progression into the more enlightened techniques now adopted when grilling a survivor of aggravated rape.

The treatment meted out to HB as she presented her case for justice is no part of the process to achieve that. What a shame that was the best presentation they could muster.
My opinion

 

[Mex]

This is only the opinion of a single person who had no contact with CB. It may or may not be valid. I would prefer to see the opinions of a wider group of experts, rather than just one.

I shall not be debating or disputing the judge's decision, whatever it may be.

The defence are free to call an equally eminent rebuttal witness to the stand.