NOT GUILTY Germany/Portugal - Christian Brueckner, 27 @ time of 1st crime (2004), charged with sexual assault crimes, Praia de Rocha, Portugal. #6

[Trivento]

That’s the concern. As we can see, if this evidence was taken into account it would have corroborated Hazel’s testimony, proved the defence was lying & proved FF lied to a rape victim to put pressure on her not to proceed. She was right about the scar!

IMO this wasn’t an acquittal won on account of the evidence it was won because a lot of the evidence was blocked from being used. A master stroke from the defence.

Perhaps the evidence being public will make it impossible to be inadmissible in a MM trial…

Yes .. and I’m struggling to comprehend the logic of a system that says evidence cannot be used more than once , in separate trials .. why not ?
Of course a legal system has to have standards and thresholds etc … but surely not to an extent that the system just becomes ineffective and allows criminals to walk free and victims be denied of justice .

 

[Davieson]

Yes .. and I’m struggling to comprehend the logic of a system that says evidence cannot be used more than once , in separate trials .. why not ?
Of course a legal system has to have standards and thresholds etc … but surely not to an extent that the system just becomes ineffective and allows criminals to walk free and victims be denied of justice .

It might be more to do with the inadmissablity of the evidence in the first place - being inadmissable for any trial.

 

[TheRockingRev]

I don’t understand your point. The German prosecutors have been clear that they have one person of interest (CB) and that he killed MM.

If they found images or footage of a deceased or tortured MM within CB’s private collection found on his property - how could that not implicate him?

Because we don't know that the footage actually shows CB - it could, for all we know, show someone else. CB could've been involved, but unless there is proof is somehow involved in what they found, there's no real case. Remember that the police have said that from what they have found they believe MM to be dead - but that doesn't mean they have a case against CB because of it. They also have to be 100% sure that whatever they found actually is of MM. Things like this don't just happen overnight.

The questions remain - what is it they found at CB's property? And what makes them believe she is dead?

We’ve discussed photo or video evidence for five years and it’s impossible to reconcile that it exists yet CB has not been charged.

We only have to look at how weak the evidence was in the rape and indecent exposure trail to know that if they had photographic evidence of MM found on CB’s property that they would have charged the MM case first.

There is no evidence connecting CB to MM because the process that has led us to this point and the lack of any real evidence suggests he is not responsible for her disappearance.

 

[Trivento]

It might be more to do with the inadmissablity of the evidence in the first place - being inadmissable for any trial.

Am talking about valid evidence though .. that has previously been successfully used to secure a conviction in court .

 

[frank-cole]

Yes .. and I’m struggling to comprehend the logic of a system that says evidence cannot be used more than once , in separate trials .. why not ?
Of course a legal system has to have standards and thresholds etc … but surely not to an extent that the system just becomes ineffective and allows criminals to walk free and victims be denied of justice .

Yes, why admissible then & inadmissible now. Inconsistency.


Surely CB’s ‘human rights’ should be weighed up against the magnitude & seriousness of the evidence.

The scar on CB’s leg substantiates what we were all continually having to explain before, during & after trial - acquittal doesn’t mean he isn’t responsible & it doesn’t make evidence magically disappear. This was won via a motion.

I am concerned that the fangirl-ish character assassinations of Hazel will resurface.

Really - those who doubted her & believed the defences claim that he doesn’t have a scar, must all be feeling incredibly ashamed of themselves right now. And rightly so.

 

[RichardKimble]

I see the scar issue was raised again, it was dealt with in court by both sets of lawyers.

Subsequently she asked all lawyers to inspect photographs of the accused’s leg and thigh area, where Ms Behan claimed she saw a mark of some kind.

In his cross-examination, Mr Fülscher highlighted how, in various witness statements, Ms Behan described the mark variously as a scar, tattoo, birthmark or a clump of material.

“I didn’t know what this marking was, I cannot recall word for word what I said,” said Ms Behan.

‘I believe this man is the attacker’: Irish woman accuses Madeleine McCann suspect in rape case

Hazel Behan tells German court of ‘very unusual’ email from Christian Brückner’s defence lawyer before trial

www.irishtimes.com

 

[frank-cole]

I see the scar issue was raised again, it was dealt with in court by both sets of lawyers.

Subsequently she asked all lawyers to inspect photographs of the accused’s leg and thigh area, where Ms Behan claimed she saw a mark of some kind.

In his cross-examination, Mr Fülscher highlighted how, in various witness statements, Ms Behan described the mark variously as a scar, tattoo, birthmark or a clump of material.

“I didn’t know what this marking was, I cannot recall word for word what I said,” said Ms Behan.

‘I believe this man is the attacker’: Irish woman accuses Madeleine McCann suspect in rape case

Hazel Behan tells German court of ‘very unusual’ email from Christian Brückner’s defence lawyer before trial

www.irishtimes.com

Incorrect. As the evidence shows, Hazel was absolutely right.

FF delivered a motion that made the evidence inadmissible. Didn’t make the scar disappear though.

What was it that FF said to Hazel when he wrote to her before trial?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Because we don't know that the footage actually shows CB - it could, for all we know, show someone else. CB could've been involved, but unless there is proof is somehow involved in what they found, there's no real case. Remember that the police have said that from what they have found they believe MM to be dead - but that doesn't mean they have a case against CB because of it. They also have to be 100% sure that whatever they found actually is of MM. Things like this don't just happen overnight.

The questions remain - what is it they found at CB's property? And what makes them believe she is dead?

… the plot thickens, so there could be footage of someone else with a deceased MM?

What you are suggesting is at odds with the prosecutions statements: one suspect (CB) who unequivocally murdered MM - HCW is on the record saying this.

There may be a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting that CB is the right profile for the MM crime. This is the prosecution’s proven playbook from the prior trial. However, their evidence didn’t pass muster in that trial and the lack of a charge indicates that have a similar weak file of evidence in the MM case.

The guy almost certainly is not responsible.

 

[frank-cole]

… the plot thickens, so there could be footage of someone else with a deceased MM?

What you are suggesting is at odds with the prosecutions statements: one suspect (CB) who unequivocally murdered MM - HCW is on the record saying this.

There may be a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting that CB is the right profile for the MM crime. This is the prosecution’s proven playbook from the prior trial. However, their evidence didn’t pass muster in that trial and the lack of a charge indicates that have a similar weak file of evidence in the MM case.

The guy almost certainly is not responsible.

If the Germans have a picture of MM deceased on CB’s computer will you accept that the anti McCann theory is nonsense?

A simple yes or no will suffice

 

[TheRockingRev]

… the plot thickens, so there could be footage of someone else with a deceased MM?

You don't think these people share files? That's exactly what they do in their sick world. You must have heard of the terms Network and Rings in relation. He could have that footage, and unfortunately because of his other crimes and accusations against him he's the one come under police investigation. It could possibly show MM dead - but now the police have to ascertain if CB is involved or he just had the footage. It takes time to get that proof to get a conviction.

What you are suggesting is at odds with the prosecutions statements: one suspect (CB) who unequivocally murdered MM - HCW is on the record

Yes, but have the police? The ones who have seen the footage?

saying this.

There may be a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting that CB is the right profile for the MM crime. This is the prosecution’s proven playbook from the prior trial. However, their evidence didn’t pass muster in that trial and the lack of a charge indicates that have a similar weak file of evidence in the MM case.

The guy almost certainly is not responsible.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

You don't think these people share files? That's exactly what they do in their sick world. You must have heard of the terms Network and Rings in relation. He could have that footage, and unfortunately because of his other crimes and accusations against him he's the one come under police investigation. It could possibly show MM dead - but now the police have to ascertain if CB is involved or he just had the footage. It takes time to get that proof to get a conviction.

Yes, but have the police? The ones who have seen the footage?

The discussion is about CB being responsible for MM’s abduction and murder. If the prosecutors - who are working from the police files - didn’t know if CB was responsible for this crime why have they gone public stating that he was? What you are saying is not logical given the preceding investigations and media statements.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

<modsnip - parents have already

It would certainly make the case against CB strong. <modsnip>

This is a candid response. Can you please tell me if there is no photo a) do you think CB is innocent of this crime? And b) should OG be restarted to reinvestigate the crime and allow an investigation of MM’s parents?

If the Germans have a picture of MM deceased on CB’s computer will you accept that the anti McCann theory is nonsense?

A simple yes or no will suffice

 

[Megnut]

It would seem that the best evidence against CB was found buried -- and ill got.

A photograph they can't use might explain everything. Confidence in whose responsible but leaves a weak case without it.

It's not like he backed up his backyard in the cloud. If they seized them without a warrant, they're not making it before a jury. IMO the recent case was the test case.

JMO

 

[ChatteringBirds]

@Megnut My thoughts as well. If only they had been legally obtained.

At worst, a trial in a court of law could have taken place. At best, the truth, whatever that may be, wouldn't remain hidden, and maybe the public wouldn't have to worry about him walking free anymore. As it stands...

 

[Denis R Tandib]

If CB has served his time for past offences and cannot be convicted for other crimes then he must be released - that’s the system.

In relation to MM, he deserves the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Resulting from the inexcusable actions of the prosecutors and poorly cobbled together evidence of the last trial, presuming him innocent in the MM case is the most rational position to take.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Incorrect. As the evidence shows, Hazel was absolutely right.

FF delivered a motion that made the evidence inadmissible. Didn’t make the scar disappear though.

What was it that FF said to Hazel when he wrote to her before trial?

Can you please provide the source for the photo? It’s difficult to understand what it is.

 

[Megnut]

If CB has served his time for past offences and cannot be convicted for other crimes then he must be released - that’s the system.

In relation to MM, he deserves the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Resulting from the inexcusable actions of the prosecutors and poorly cobbled together evidence of the last trial, presuming him innocent in the MM case is the most rational position to take.

Legally innocent, by virtue of the presumption of innocence, doesn't preclude being actually guilty.

JMO

 

[RichardKimble]

Can you please provide the source for the photo? It’s difficult to understand what it is.

From the secret police files that some how the sun has access to.Were they leaked to show the investigation has gone the way of the DoDo.

The latest on CB is he's to be charged in relation to incidents with prison staff a far cry from anything related to MM its been the usual nonsense around the anniversary of her as yet unexplained disappearance.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Legally innocent, by virtue of the presumption of innocence, doesn't preclude being actually guilty.

JMO

But let’s see a shred of evidence that proves his guilt first.

 

[Davieson]

Legally innocent, by virtue of the presumption of innocence, doesn't preclude being actually guilty.

JMO

That can apply to any person standing trial for anything.