Germany/Portugal - Christian Brueckner, 27 @ time of 1st crime (2004), charged with sexual assault crimes, Praia de Rocha, Portugal. #2

[Davieson]

I think this alleged wiretapping is just to create noise. If there were such concerns CB's lawyers would have raised it earlier when he was still there, since it does not appear to have any bearings on the trial. unless the prosecution are using any of these alleged wiretapped conversations as evidence, I really do not see the relevance.

Cb would have had conversations with his lawyers regarding these trial, so if they were being listened to, it would very much be relevant to current proceedings.
Perhaps the trial, in front of the judges is exactly the place for these issues to be raised.

 

[C.greek]

Not sure I understand the relevance still. Why would the trial be the place to raise these concerns? What would they gain? Annul the trial?

Cb would have had conversations with his lawyers regarding these trial, so if they were being listened to, it would very much be relevant to current proceedings.
Perhaps the trial, in front of the judges is exactly the place for these issues to be raised.

 

[Davieson]

Not sure I understand the relevance still. Why would the trial be the place to raise these concerns? What would they gain? Annul the trial?

That might be their motive, but better to have these issues out in the open rather than behind closed doors. IMO

It is illegal to intercept conversations between lawyers and their clients.

 

[RichardKimble]

We may inadvertently find out much more about the nature of the CB/MM investigation in this trial than the BKA might have wanted us to.

I'm here for it, as I'm sure anyone who's followed the MM case will be.

Interesting times ahead.

 

[C.greek]

That might be their motive, but better to have these issues out in the open rather than behind closed doors. IMO

It is illegal to intercept conversations between lawyers and their clients.

Yes of course it is illegal, no doubt about that. My point is that I don't see the relevance of these allegations unless the defence wants to annul the trial. because even if these allegations are true, I doubt any of the evidence used by the prosecution would be based on these wiretapped conversations. So what is the point in raising these issues now? If these allegations are true, what could happen for this specific trial?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Motive for what though? Even if it came from eg. a negative place, a grudge (although there's nothing to base that idea upon) if it happened, it happened. I doubt the defence team would be using it in court as evidence of misconduct unless it had been thoroughly checked out and verified by them.

I’m not sure why it’s so hard to think that a police officer might be interested in fair legal process and justice. Does there have to be another motive for her to come forward?

 

[RichardKimble]

Yes of course it is illegal, no doubt about that. My point is that I don't see the relevance of these allegations unless the defence wants to annul the trial. because even if these allegations are true, I doubt any of the evidence used by the prosecution would be based on these wiretapped conversations. So what is the point in raising these issues now? If these allegations are true, what could happen for this specific trial?

I guess none of us really know, but it might be that after reading the prosecution files that therein something contained could only have come from listening into the discussion between the lawyer and the client privilege.

 

[Davieson]

Yes of course it is illegal, no doubt about that. My point is that I don't see the relevance of these allegations unless the defence wants to annul the trial. because even if these allegations are true, I doubt any of the evidence used by the prosecution would be based on these wiretapped conversations. So what is the point in raising these issues now? If these allegations are true, what could happen for this specific trial?

Well if these allegations are found to be true it would certainly undermine the credibility of the prosecution and police and may well result in dismissal of charges.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Yes of course it is illegal, no doubt about that. My point is that I don't see the relevance of these allegations unless the defence wants to annul the trial. because even if these allegations are true, I doubt any of the evidence used by the prosecution would be based on these wiretapped conversations. So what is the point in raising these issues now? If these allegations are true, what could happen for this specific trial?

We don’t know when the witness came forward, could be a simple matter of timing.

In any case, it certainly causes questions about the BKA’s methods. This might be useful in defending CB, we don’t know what other info FF will bring forward. He has to undermine the the prosecution’s case and it looks likely he’ll use every trick in the book to do so.

 

[RichardKimble]

We don’t know when the witness came forward, could be a simple matter of timing.

In any case, it certainly causes questions about the BKA’s methods. This might be useful in defending CB, we don’t know what other info FF will bring forward. He has to undermine the the prosecution’s case and it looks likely he’ll use every trick in the book to do so.

They certainly seem to be on the front foot, first having a judge removed, a spat with the prosecution with the senior judge siding with the defences opening statements ,now this.

 

[C.greek]

We don’t know when the witness came forward, could be a simple matter of timing.

In any case, it certainly causes questions about the BKA’s methods. This might be useful in defending CB, we don’t know what other info FF will bring forward. He has to undermine the the prosecution’s case and it looks likely he’ll use every trick in the book to do so.

I read the article on T-online where this witness' testimony is presented for the first time. The defence did not mention this allegation in court as far as i understood, only asked for her to be called as a witness. So this would change things slightly imo. Also, what is not clear is whether his cell was bugged in general (I.e. when there were discussions of sending an undercover) or his phone. If the first, it may well have been legal. If the second, I really cannot understand how the BKA would do this, unless it was not an official line but rather the other officials whom she mentions in her account who just wanted to 'settle a score' with CB.

 

[Davieson]

Hopefully the truth of the matter will be revealed in time.

 

[mrjitty]

i doubt the case would be dismissed. usually illegally obtained evidence can’t be used.

we don’t know if any evidence was obtained this way

 

[Mex]

Whatever her motivation, it won't alter the truth of the matter.

I agree the truth will out. Eventually. In the interim the implications are horrendous for other cases as pointed out by Misty, if her integrity is called into question not least by herself.

How many other prisoner's cells would she have been involved in bugging during her employment and what prevented her from raising concerns about such a procedure during the trials of those defendants? I think motive may well be key.

These five hearings have already been considerably delayed while the procedural objection re jurisdiction was investigated.
I can only imagine how long the delay could be while this serious allegation is tested; notwithstanding that the learned judges might be empowered by the system to use discretion about too much of indefinitely crying wolf. Bearing in mind the objection of other issues such as the supposed inability for CB to have a fair trial have been flagged up.

I am puzzled by everything about this.
I am all for defendants' rights to fair trials. Similarly I think plaintiffs are entitled to the same.

 

[Mex]

i wonder if this could explain what the hell they’ve been “investigating “for years. they’ve been hoping to get an admission on a wire tap.

I think that while investigating other cases they have uncovered evidence of these seven cases which they are obliged to pursue.

I have included the previous two cases dealt with before CB's notoriety was released into the public domain

• the child molestation
• the DM aggravated rape

both for which CB has been tried and convicted.

I think they have been systematically following the evidence. In doing so I hope they have used every legal means to which they have access.

 

[misty48]

I read the article on T-online where this witness' testimony is presented for the first time. The defence did not mention this allegation in court as far as i understood, only asked for her to be called as a witness. So this would change things slightly imo. Also, what is not clear is whether his cell was bugged in general (I.e. when there were discussions of sending an undercover) or his phone. If the first, it may well have been legal. If the second, I really cannot understand how the BKA would do this, unless it was not an official line but rather the other officials whom she mentions in her account who just wanted to 'settle a score' with CB.

BIB.. How are the court supposed to establish that something unofficial didn't happen if the defence conveniently has supporting photos?

 

[misty48]

I'm not sure if this article has already been posted here

Braunschweig: Im Prozess gegen Maddie-Verdächtigen geht's auch um Inga

Im Prozess in Braunschweig gegen Christian Brückner beantragte dessen Anwalt, Beweise nicht zu verwenden – da sie illegal beschafft worden sein sollen.

www.bild.de

*snipped
"The defense's accusation: It wasn't a dog who found the data carriers, but a policewoman - the dog owner's partner.

She had previously searched the property and photographed the site. Her note to her colleagues: “I think we should take a look.” Attorney Fülscher: “Using the files found would violate the principles of a fair procedure.”

Again - how do you prove FF's version of events is untrue?

 

[Mex]

That might be their motive, but better to have these issues out in the open rather than behind closed doors. IMO

It is illegal to intercept conversations between lawyers and their clients.

I don't think there is anyone working in law enforcement who would be unaware of the illegality of doing that.
Therefore I find the allegation that a set up was installed in a prison specifically for that purpose quite extraordinary bearing in mind the chain of personnel who would necessarily be involved and the permissions required.

We will find out in due course what substance if any, there is for the allegation. But until then it is all speculation.

 

[Mex]

We don’t know when the witness came forward, could be a simple matter of timing.

In any case, it certainly causes questions about the BKA’s methods. This might be useful in defending CB, we don’t know what other info FF will bring forward. He has to undermine the the prosecution’s case and it looks likely he’ll use every trick in the book to do so.

Thing is, he is not even addressing the case for the prosecution. His aim appears to be keeping any or all of these cases out of the court for as long as possible.
My opinion.

 

[Mex]

BIB.. How are the court supposed to establish that something unofficial didn't happen if the defence conveniently has supporting photos?

I never thought about that although I did puzzle about the wires mentioned being less than clandestine.

Why would photographs be taken of an allegedly illegal act?