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

[Anxala]

This means that they might not need the box factory evidence?!

I guess it'll depend upon where the email addresses were found ie. were they within data on the usbs or in the text docs found during the illegal search?

From what I've read so far, it's not clear if the email discovery came from the box factory haul or from an entirely separate investigation source.

 

[UK Girl]

Out of curiousity given that these trials supposedly arent about MM why was that there answering questions about her?

 

[Davieson]

I guess it'll depend upon where the email addresses were found ie. were they within data on the usbs or in the text docs found during the illegal search?

From what I've read so far, it's not clear if the email discovery came from the box factory haul or from an entirely separate investigation source.

Do these emails have anything to do with any of the cases in the present trial, or are they just part of a bad character reference ?

 

[Anxala]

Do these emails have anything to do with any of the cases in the present trial, or are they just part of a bad character reference ?

Impossible to say since we know nothing about them other than the brief description given by the police witness.

But, just to add to my earlier speculating, the only reason I can think of for this (unrelated to trial) new 'email' info being brought to the judge's attention might be in a bid to appeal to the judge, to convince her of the broader importance of what was found in the illegal box factory haul, in the hope that she'll allow it to stand as evidence and not throw it out, as the defence is requesting. Because if it DID come from that illegal haul, and the judge refuses to allow it, then that's it disallowed for good because the BKA can't change the history of how the email info came into its possession.

Which would in turn impact the CB/MM investigation.

 

[RichardKimble]

Impossible to say since we know nothing about them other than the brief description given by the police witness.

But, just to add to my earlier speculating, the only reason I can think of for this (unrelated to trial) new 'email' info being brought to the judge's attention might be in a bid to convince the judge of the importance of what was found in the illegal box factory haul, in the hope that it will be allowed to stand as evidence and not thrown out, as the defence is asking. Because if it did come from the illegal haul, and the judge refuses to allow it, then that's it disallowed for good because the BKA can't change the history of how the email info came into its possession.

You're probably close there, they need them for the MM case and are trying to show the importance, but further down the road if used, then the ECJ might become involved.If CB is involved then it's only right and proper that it stands the scrutiny of a fair trial, illegally gained without a proper search warrant may not meet that threshold.

 

[UK Girl]

Impossible to say since we know nothing about them other than the brief description given by the police witness.

But, just to add to my earlier speculating, the only reason I can think of for this (unrelated to trial) new 'email' info being brought to the judge's attention might be in a bid to convince the judge of the importance of what was found in the illegal box factory haul, in the hope that it will be allowed to stand as evidence and not thrown out, as the defence is asking. Because if it DID come from that illegal haul, and the judge refuses to allow it, then that's it disallowed for good because the BKA can't change the history of how the email info came into its possession.

thats what I was thinking - that they was hoping to sway the Judge into allowing that evidence stand.

 

[RichardKimble]

Another thing, it might have prevented the BKA from trying CB for the MM case but they're using this one as a test case to see if it can proceed.

 

[RichardKimble]

This means that they might not need the box factory evidence?!

None of us know, but if the info regarding the e-mail address was obtained from the box factory then it might be called into question.

 

[Davieson]

None of us know, but if the info regarding the e-mail address was obtained from the box factory then it might be called into question.

In that case would it not be better for the prosecution not to attempt to use any of that evidence in the current trial, so that there would be no risk of it being rejected and could therefore be available for any MM trial ?

 

[Lilly b]

I guess it'll depend upon where the email addresses were found ie. were they within data on the usbs or in the text docs found during the illegal search?

From what I've read so far, it's not clear if the email discovery came from the box factory haul or from an entirely separate investigation source.

Definitely could do with knowing, I wonder if they was going to try to keep this information for a later date for the mm case, and maybe using these 5 cases before trying for mm charges, to see if more info would come out ?

 

[mrjitty]

I guess it'll depend upon where the email addresses were found ie. were they within data on the usbs or in the text docs found during the illegal search?

From what I've read so far, it's not clear if the email discovery came from the box factory haul or from an entirely separate investigation source.

They seem to have come from a subpoena of cloud provider hotmail - owned by microsoft.

So not the box factory search

 

[mrjitty]

This means that they might not need the box factory evidence?!

They appear to be a different search

 

[mrjitty]

Have we a case of a senior officer going rogue and determined to pin something on CB by fair means or foul ?
We've already had mention of CB's cell being bugged which also would have been illegal.

I don't think so

Seems more like the detective had a theory and engineered PC to do an illegal search of the property, expecting to find IG there

 

[Anxala]

They seem to have come from a subpoena of cloud provider hotmail - owned by microsoft.

So not the box factory search

Yes but where did the email address for which they got a subpoena come from? You need an address to get a subpoena and the address was unlikely to be [email protected]. Do you see what I mean? Was the email address found amongst the data on the usbs from the box factory haul or did the BKA come by it from a completely separate wing of its investigation? That's what we don't know.

And if it did come from a completely separate and legal wing of its investigation, then why has it come up in a trial that has nothing whatsoever to do with MM?

 

[mrjitty]

thats what I was thinking - that they was hoping to sway the Judge into allowing that evidence stand.

I dont think so

This is evidence of sex offending to support the charges

The emails won't impact whether the box factory search was invalid. Evidence obtained by illegal search will often be valuable evidence - but the point is to punish law enforcement so they don't do illegal searches.

 

[mrjitty]

Yes but where did the email address for which they got a subpoena come from? That's what we don't know. You need an address to get a subpoena and the address was unlikely to be [email protected].

Probably someone he emailed, or maybe off the computer mentioned in the article.

I don't think learning of his email address via the box factory would make the subpoena to microsoft unlawful unless they lacked PC for it.

IMO

 

[Niner]

So was Stampa the only witness today or was HeB there too. It sounded like he was in the article in post #16 - but the other articles that you all have posted failed to mention him for today.

TIA if anyone can help! Just want to keep my notes straight!

 

[UK Girl]

So was Stampa the only witness today or was HeB there too. It sounded like he was in the article in post #16 - but the other articles that you all have posted failed to mention him for today.

TIA if anyone can help! Just want to keep my notes straight!

apparently he was there but there doesnt seem much said about it

 

[Anxala]

In that case would it not be better for the prosecution not to attempt to use any of that evidence in the current trial, so that there would be no risk of it being rejected and could therefore be available for any MM trial ?

That's an interesting question. An eff-up on the part of the prosecution maybe in its bid to overwhelm the trial with as much anti-CB material as possible in order to secure convictions? Failing to see the bigger legal picture? And only now realising that it's in danger of becoming hoist by its own petard, hence its 'but the emails!!!' clemancy appeal to the judge!

 

[Davieson]

If you were using dark web forums to communicate, why would you bother with more open email for dubious or illegal material ?