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

[RichardKimble]

That’s true. If they don’t exist they won’t be the concrete evidence.

CB is a non preferential serial offender with a history of assaulting stranger women and children. He also has history of taking images of his crimes.

If he followed his form it may be unfortunately be the evidence in the Mm case.

Where does the concrete evidence that HCW talks of transfer itself to images of a deceased MM.

 

[frank-cole]

Where does the concrete evidence that HCW talks of transfer itself to images of a deceased MM.

As we know, they’re withholding that information.

IMO - all it can be is pictures or videos. Along with a lot of written stuff.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

As we know, they’re withholding that information.

IMO - all it can be is pictures or videos. Along with a lot of written stuff.

We know there is a lot of written material - much of it demonstrates he is a twisted individual.

Alongside, material evidence like a photo and he would have been charged.

I know you desperately want there to be a photo to finally vindicate the parents, we feel your yearning.

But how the investigation has progressed and the sequence of the trials shows there is no photo.

 

[frank-cole]

We know there is a lot of written material - much of it demonstrates he is a twisted individual.

Alongside, material evidence like a photo and he would have been charged.

I know you desperately want there to be a photo to finally vindicate the parents, we feel your yearning.

But how the investigation has progressed and the sequence of the trials shows there is no photo.

Incorrect. Evidence thresholds are considerably high in non forensic murder cases. That is now compounded by the risk of inadmissibility of key evidence.

The usual suspects are still out fighting the cause. That behaviour is never going to change, therefore for a section of individuals the McCann’s can never be vindicated. I think we both know that.

 

[RichardKimble]

Incorrect. Evidence thresholds are considerably high in non forensic murder cases. That is now compounded by the risk of inadmissibility of key evidence.

The usual suspects are still out fighting the cause. That behaviour is never going to change, therefore for a section of individuals the McCann’s can never be vindicated. I think we both know that.

This isn't about the parents it's the evidence that according to the Sun was bombshell ,or lack of.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Incorrect. Evidence thresholds are considerably high in non forensic murder cases. That is now compounded by the risk of inadmissibility of key evidence.

The usual suspects are still out fighting the cause. That behaviour is never going to change, therefore for a section of individuals the McCann’s can never be vindicated. I think we both know that.

Higher than non-forensic multiple tape trials. Do you have a source to validate that point?

 

[frank-cole]

Higher than non-forensic multiple tape trials. Do you have a source to validate that point?

Can you explain what you mean? I’m slightly confused trying to understand what you’re nudging at.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Yes. My position is that the sequence of a suspect being charged is based upon the likelihood of obtaining a conviction i.e. the stronger the evidence the priority for charging.

The box factory evidence and HeB’s evidence was consistent across the rape trails and the MM case.

Therefore, if the evidence is largely the same but there is more circumstantial evidence in the MM case and a photo of the deceased was found in the suspects possession then the MM case would have been charged first.

It makes absolutely zero sense to risk the MM case with flimsy evidence in the rape case.

Rape and murder are both extremely serious crimes. Threshold for evidence for an indictment would be the same unless you can point to something substantive in German law that states otherwise.

 

[RichardKimble]

Yes. My position is that the sequence of a suspect being charged is based upon the likelihood of obtaining a conviction i.e. the stronger the evidence the priority for charging.

The box factory evidence and HeB’s evidence was consistent across the rape trails and the MM case.

Therefore, if the evidence is largely the same but there is more circumstantial evidence in the MM case and a photo of the deceased was found in the suspects possession then the MM case would have been charged first.

It makes absolutely zero sense to risk the MM case with flimsy evidence in the rape case.

Rape and murder are both extremely serious crimes. Threshold for evidence for an indictment would be the same unless you can point to something substantive in German law that states otherwise.

Timeline of evidence doesn't support any charges in relation to MM, 2016 the factory search, 2020 the appeal, this led to unrelated charges and a trial also these were unrelated to the factory ergo the answer the Germans or any other investigators seek is not in the factory evidence log.

 

[Megnut]

Yes. My position is that the sequence of a suspect being charged is based upon the likelihood of obtaining a conviction i.e. the stronger the evidence the priority for charging.

The box factory evidence and HeB’s evidence was consistent across the rape trails and the MM case.

Therefore, if the evidence is largely the same but there is more circumstantial evidence in the MM case and a photo of the deceased was found in the suspects possession then the MM case would have been charged first.

It makes absolutely zero sense to risk the MM case with flimsy evidence in the rape case.

Rape and murder are both extremely serious crimes. Threshold for evidence for an indictment would be the same unless you can point to something substantive in German law that states otherwise.

I think it was strategic. In this sense: he was tried for the SA charges because they believed they would convict him. I don't think we've heard from jurors but I suspect that, if we had, they wouldn't have said they believe CB is innocent, just that they didn't feel the Prosecution cleared BARD, and therefore, they were required to find him 'not guilty'.

LE is not opening up a new investigation, like there's a different assailant out there. The Prosecution failed.

MM is a no-body case. That has gone unsolved for years but IMO finally had evidence linking CB but now it appears it's evidence questionably attained and easily suppressed. Still it might be of such clear and convincing truth that it looks CB AND it confirms death. Enough to satisfy those in the innermost circle but not enough for BARD.

Given that CB was already incarcerated and already heading to trial over the SA, it gave LE TIME to continue investigating CB for MM, the biggest piece of evidence to gather -- MM's remains or at least more physical evidence, from that campsite.

But the SA trial collapsed, MM was not found, the factory evidence is not usable, and CB is about to be released, having served his current sentence.

As I see it, CB did commit these crimes. LE is hamstrung to prove it however. Knowing it beyond a doubt is different than proving it beyond one.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

It scares me that he'll be released. Sadistic predator, there will be victims..

JMO

 

[frank-cole]

Yes. My position is that the sequence of a suspect being charged is based upon the likelihood of obtaining a conviction i.e. the stronger the evidence the priority for charging.

The box factory evidence and HeB’s evidence was consistent across the rape trails and the MM case.

Therefore, if the evidence is largely the same but there is more circumstantial evidence in the MM case and a photo of the deceased was found in the suspects possession then the MM case would have been charged first.

It makes absolutely zero sense to risk the MM case with flimsy evidence in the rape case.

Rape and murder are both extremely serious crimes. Threshold for evidence for an indictment would be the same unless you can point to something substantive in German law that states otherwise.

Thank you and for explaining in detail really well.

What many expect is that the German’s would have had a fair amount of circumstantial evidence to take into the rape cases. The defence at trial were proactively avoiding fighting the evidence by instead attacking the way the evidence was found in order to have evidence be quashed from being used. The defence were successful. We know that now because we know about a portion of the box factory finds and we know that the entirety of this evidence was deemed inadmissible. For example the scar that Hazel described.

When the verdicts were delivered the phase ‘I am truth a seeker’ kept popping amongst those who didn’t believe CB was responsible. However now that we know the new information the ‘truth seeker’ lines haven’t reappeared. Giving the indication that they were disingenuous claims. Actual truth seekers will be louder now than ever before. They certainly wouldn’t be quieter.

Unfortunately it is a possibility that photographic evidence exists in the box factory finds and that means that it’s possible that evidence of murder exists but can’t be used to put the person responsible away.

I think all of the evidence being heard will make a strong case. The challenge is admissibility and as you’ve pointed out, even if there’s a photo and a written confession, the defence & small factions of the public will be trying to claim he was sent said photo.

In many eyes, it’s obvious but the case has risk.

Whether you’re a red or a blue - if we find out they have photos and they can’t use it in court, we’ll all know the guilty man is going dodge punishment and walk amongst us once more. That is horrifying because you, I & everybody else know exactly how dangerous he is. ‘Winning or losing a debate is fine - a dangerous sex offender being free is horrifying.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

It scares me that he'll be released. Sadistic predator, there will be victims..

JMO

He may risk be eliminated very soon if not extradited.

 

[frank-cole]

I think it was strategic. In this sense: he was tried for the SA charges because they believed they would convict him. I don't think we've heard from jurors but I suspect that, if we had, they wouldn't have said they believe CB is innocent, just that they didn't feel the Prosecution cleared BARD, and therefore, they were required to find him 'not guilty'.

LE is not opening up a new investigation, like there's a different assailant out there. The Prosecution failed.

MM is a no-body case. That has gone unsolved for years but IMO finally had evidence linking CB but now it appears it's evidence questionably attained and easily suppressed. Still it might be of such clear and convincing truth that it looks CB AND it confirms death. Enough to satisfy those in the innermost circle but not enough for BARD.

Given that CB was already incarcerated and already heading to trial over the SA, it gave LE TIME to continue investigating CB for MM, the biggest piece of evidence to gather -- MM's remains or at least more physical evidence, from that campsite.

But the SA trial collapsed, MM was not found, the factory evidence is not usable, and CB is about to be released, having served his current sentence.

As I see it, CB did commit these crimes. LE is hamstrung to prove it however. Knowing it beyond a doubt is different than proving it beyond one.

JMO

IMO this might be the current reality (for the prosecution)
It may well be that if the appeal fails their MM case can’t proceed (because of the evidence of murder being blocked from being heard)

However I think it’s possible they recovered concrete evidence when they raided his room in the apartment he was staying in - in 2018

 

[Davieson]

We don't know what the evidence for murder is, nor that it will be deemed inadmissible.

In fact, given all the publicity about this concrete evidence, it will be a great pity if it is unable to be tested in court, as we will remain ignorant as to its content and validity.

 

[Anxala]

We don't know what the evidence for murder is, nor that it will be deemed inadmissible.

In fact, given all the publicity about this concrete evidence, it will be a great pity if it is unable to be tested in court, as we will remain ignorant as to its content and validity.

This, for me, is the real tragedy here.

 

[frank-cole]

We don't know what the evidence for murder is, nor that it will be deemed inadmissible.

In fact, given all the publicity about this concrete evidence, it will be a great pity if it is unable to be tested in court, as we will remain ignorant as to its content and validity.

Even if it doesn’t go to court because of admissibility rulings, if they share the findings of their investigation we’ll know the answer.

In the absence of a crystal ball - perhaps talk of inadmissible evidence of murder not being heard in court may be an opportunity to pave the way to dismiss or deny the significance of a photo of a deceased MM on CB’s computer in the future…..

 

[Davieson]

Even if it doesn’t go to court because of admissibility rulings, if they share the findings of their investigation we’ll know the answer.

In the absence of a crystal ball - perhaps talk of inadmissible evidence of murder not being heard in court may be an opportunity to pave the way to dismiss or deny the significance of a photo of a deceased MM on CB’s computer in the future…..

Will they be able to do that?
Might that not leave them open to a contempt of court charge, or something similar?

 

[frank-cole]

Will they be able to do that?
Might that not leave them open to a contempt of court charge, or something similar?

If they can’t charge because of admissibility i think it’s likely they’ll release the findings of their investigation. HCW said this in his most recent interview with SF.

If there was some rule against such action I doubt what they found at the box factory would have been on the front page of all the newspapers.

In my view that’s the worst outcome. But it would confirm that MM is deceased & where the photo or video was found & whom the data file belonged to.

 

[Hygge]

HCW has repeatedly said the evidence is not from the box factory. A Sun docu turned up and all play crazy. Jutta R already used photos of the usb sticks in her documentary years ago and BKA would never give the evidence to some Sun journalists