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

[Davieson]

I would find it very strange to have more than one rapist in the same area committing crimes with the same MO. even though both witnesses hadn't heard anything before the DM rape trial, they both described similar MOs from the videos they allegedly saw. Therefore, I wouldn't really bet on their testimony to be really important for the trial... even if they don't remember details or if there are inconsistencies in their recollections, it is a fact they saw videos of CB committing rape with an MO that resembles what DM and HB went through. Jmo

If their testimony isn't important why were they put forward by the prosecution at all ?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Many psychoaths are also arrogant; I fail to see why one can't both.

They can. But my brother is arrogant but he is far from an “evil psychopath”. I think the inconsistency in description is a fair point from the judge. Especially with everything else that doesn’t match.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

The two rapes without a video or a victim doesn't seem to be the key point in all the trials against CB, even if they might have been in the DM case.

Somehow i tend to think about the possibility, their appearence just might be of strategical reasons. As weak as witness MS seem to appear, as stronger might appear the other witnesses and evidence?!

But yes, MS and HB had been taken as credible witnesses in the past and in relation to trial, with a legally binding sentence.

It looks, as if the prosecutors seem to seperate the wheat from the chaff pretty early, to make it harder more and more for the defence to follow the strategy of questioning the credibility of the witnesses.

I'm still surprised, that this trial started with these two alleged rapes, based on evidence that seems to be questionable, and not with the big "Hazel B. thing"!

Could be a very sophisticated strategy by the court, imho!

We'll see...

Their testimonies were taken in conjunction with DNA evidence.

It could just be that the statements from MS and HeB is all the evidence they have in these two crimes. Very likely, IMO.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

This is the slowest court case in history

Yep. Three weeks to find out that MS is not credible as a witness. Who would’ve thunk it!

 

[Denis R Tandib]

From the Mail, are HeB and MS lining up their ducks.

S said he had told Busching to get rid of the tapes on the camera as he didn't want anything to do with them. He then said they had lost contact.

But his version fell apart after he later admitted to the judge that he had spoken to Busching on the phone on Thursday morning.

The judge ordered S mobile to be confiscated and it later emerged that he had spoken with him twice just before giving evidence and again two further times.

Christian Brueckner 'filmed himself dancing around tied-up girl'

Convicted rapist Brueckner, 47, is accused of three rapes and two sex assaults said to have been carried out on Portugal's Algarve coast in a period from 2000 to 2017.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Like Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. Embarrassing.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

The two rapes without a video or a victim doesn't seem to be the key point in all the trials against CB, even if they might have been in the DM case.

Somehow i tend to think about the possibility, their appearence just might be of strategical reasons. As weak as witness MS seem to appear, as stronger might appear the other witnesses and evidence?!

But yes, MS and HB had been taken as credible witnesses in the past and in relation to trial, with a legally binding sentence.

It looks, as if the prosecutors seem to seperate the wheat from the chaff pretty early, to make it harder more and more for the defence to follow the strategy of questioning the credibility of the witnesses.

I'm still surprised, that this trial started with these two alleged rapes, based on evidence that seems to be questionable, and not with the big "Hazel B. thing"!

Could be a very sophisticated strategy by the court, imho!

We'll see...

Some doubts how this will proceed, but still hope that this may be like the portuguese proverb: "O primeiro milho é para os pardais", if you know what I mean... In literal translation, "the first corn is for the sparrows"...

 

[Denis R Tandib]

If their testimony isn't important why were they put forward by the prosecution at all ?

I don’t think there is any other evidence in the unknown victim cases.

 

[mrjitty]

I don’t think there is any other evidence in the unknown victim cases.

Yes - they are the only evidence for those two charges. Logically from the previous verdict, I can see why those cases were brought, but now it doesn't look good if they colluded on their evidence.

 

[mrjitty]

We need to keep in mind that this is not an english style trial where the prosecution put on a case. The judges decided what witnesses they wanted to talk to having reviewed the entire file of evidence. There is no 'clever prosecution strategy' behind the order of who is being called

Scheduling could simply be the availability of witnesses, and I also suspect the judges will deal with parts of the case together. So these 2 witnesses dispose of 2 charges. Then there will be the HB part of the trial, then the public sex offences.

 

[Davieson]

I don’t think there is any other evidence in the unknown victim cases.

If this is so, why would the presiding judge allow the cases to be heard at all ?
No identifiable victims, no proper dates when offences occurred, no forensics.
Seems very strange to me.

 

[Davieson]

We need to keep in mind that this is not an english style trial where the prosecution put on a case. The judges decided what witnesses they wanted to talk to having reviewed the entire file of evidence. There is no 'clever prosecution strategy' behind the order of who is being called

Scheduling could simply be the availability of witnesses, and I also suspect the judges will deal with parts of the case together. So these 2 witnesses dispose of 2 charges. Then there will be the HB part of the trial, then the public sex offences.

Could they simply be dealing with the weakest cases first to get them out of the way and leave the strongest until last ?

 

[UK Girl]

Could they simply be dealing with the weakest cases first to get them out of the way and leave the strongest until last ?

Do you know how the verdicts are reached there? Eg do they listen all five cases and immediately say the result as in here or give a result some time later after the evidence has finished in all five cases?

 

[RichardKimble]

Yes - they are the only evidence for those two charges. Logically from the previous verdict, I can see why those cases were brought, but now it doesn't look good if they colluded on their evidence.

Maybe it looked good on paper ,early doors but one hopes HCW isn't relying on these two.

 

[Davieson]

Do you know how the verdicts are reached there? Eg do they listen all five cases and immediately say the result as in here or give a result some time later after the evidence has finished in all five cases?

I don't know, but as none of the cases are connected, other than CB as defendant, I would have thought they might decide the cases as they go along, after due deliberation, even if not announced until the end.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

If this is so, why would the presiding judge allow the cases to be heard at all ?
No identifiable victims, no proper dates when offences occurred, no forensics.
Seems very strange to me.

It’s a good question. I wonder when the judges review the case file, before the trial is approved or once it has been approved.

You would think the latter given this judge saw inconsistencies in MS’s statements.

So what was the evidence in these two cases that allowed them to trial?

Up until now, we have been told that there has to be a very high likelihood of conviction before a trial in Germany is given the green light.

I am having a hard time reconciling this on the two crimes without known victims.

 

[Davieson]

Is the judge who approved the trial the same as the judge who is now presiding over the case?

 

[Anxala]

It’s a good question. I wonder when the judges review the case file, before the trial is approved or once it has been approved.

You would think the latter given this judge saw inconsistencies in MS’s statements.

So what was the evidence in these two cases that allowed them to trial?

Up until now, we have been told that there has to be a very high likelihood of conviction before a trial in Germany is given the green light.

I am having a hard time reconciling this on the two crimes without known victims.

^ I'm guessing: The description of the unknown elderly lady's attack and rape mirrored the DM and the HaB attacks and rapes, so perhaps that was enough in her case? The young girl's attack and rape was reported to have taken place in CB's house, with distinguishing features (the beam, the id of CB's voice) present, in the account given by HeB and MS.

If their account of the former was seen as credible, which it clearly was, then there would be no real reason to question their account of the latter, CB already being known for the low-life sadist he was.

 

[RichardKimble]

^ I'm guessing: The description of the unknown elderly lady's attack and rape mirrored the DM and the HaB attacks and rapes, so perhaps that was enough in her case? The young girl's attack and rape was reported to have taken place in CB's house, with distinguishing features (the beam) present, in the account given by HeB and MS.

If their account of the former was seen as credible, which it clearly was, then there would be no reason to question their account of the latter, CB being known for the sadist he was.

It was the judge who commented on MSs recall, if it was FF alone questioning it you'd think maybe he was on a loser, but if MS is unreliable now why was he reliable before, I see according to MBs (sky)version he asked MS if he was suffering any ailments.

Christian B trial: Madeleine McCann suspect 'seen on videos sexually assaulting woman and girl', court hears

Christian B is standing trial in Germany accused of three counts of rape and two of child sexual abuse. The prosecution claims the offences took place in Portugal between 2000 and 2017. The allegations do not relate to Madeleine's disappearance in 2007.

news.sky.com

During extensive questioning by the judge and the defendant's lawyer, Seyferth repeatedly claimed to not remember crucial details. His testimony also diverged from statements given at a trial in 2019, which saw Christian B be convicted of rape.

As the court session went on, defence lawyer Friedrich Fulscher asked the witness: "Do you suffer from Alzheimer's, or other diseases that affect memory?"

 

[mrjitty]

^ I'm guessing: The description of the unknown elderly lady's attack and rape mirrored the DM and the HaB attacks and rapes, so perhaps that was enough in her case? The young girl's attack and rape was reported to have taken place in CB's house, with distinguishing features (the beam) present, in the account given by HeB and MS.

If their account of the former was seen as credible, which it clearly was, then there would be no real reason to question their account of the latter, CB already being known for the low-life sadist he was.

The finding of the original Braunschweig Court in 2019 implies that the duo saw 3 rapes on tape. It was stated in the judgement. Therefore logically there is a basis for conviction. However if the witnesses bumble their evidence as we have seen so far, we could see an inconsistent verdict here.

 

[Anxala]

The finding of the original Braunschweig Court in 2019 implies that the duo saw 3 rapes on tape. It was stated in the judgement. Therefore logically there is a basis for conviction. However if the witnesses bumble their evidence as we have seen so far, we could see an inconsistent verdict here.

Yes, exactly. On paper, the witnesses might have looked sound, in practice, in front of a judge, under intense questioning, less so, as seems to be the case here.