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

Status
Not open for further replies.
So the scar will get a airing.

He added:' A masked man forced her to have sex, inflicted pain on her and humiliated her. However, the person who committed this offence was not the defendant. Mrs Behan may be convinced of this.

'During the hearing of evidence, it will be important for the defence to demonstrate the sources of error in the witness's recognition: Starting with the low reliability of estimating body size, the circumstance of masking, the poor lighting conditions at the crime scene, the impact of the weapon focus effect, as well as the stress level and the passage of time.

'If one comes to the conclusion that the witness is sufficiently reliable with regard to the description of the person, this will also have to be taken as a basis for her observation that the perpetrator had a cross-shaped scar on his right thigh.

'This is a physical feature that the accused does not have and therefore excludes him as the perpetrator.

'At the end of the hearing of evidence, it will not be possible to establish that the defendant sitting here is responsible for the offence committed against Hazel Behan. As in the other cases, he will have to be acquitted.'



 
Indeed it does make grim reading but FF says in the files there is a person who knows HeB regards her as the following


But he added:' Although there is a witness statement in the files from a person close to Mrs Behan who accuses the co-plaintiff of having made up the whole incident and describes the co-plaintiff as a quasi-diabolical person.'
I am puzzled by that reference.
  • who is the person who is referred to as "close to HB"
  • similarly who is the "co-complainant"?
Can you assist me in my ignorance of these two points as they are obviously of importance to the discussion.
 
I am puzzled by that reference.
  • who is the person who is referred to as "close to HB"
  • similarly who is the "co-complainant"?
Can you assist me in my ignorance of these two points as they are obviously of importance to the discussion.
I assume its an as yet unknown defence witness who was/is familiar with HB
 
So the scar will get a airing.

He added:' A masked man forced her to have sex, inflicted pain on her and humiliated her. However, the person who committed this offence was not the defendant. Mrs Behan may be convinced of this.

'During the hearing of evidence, it will be important for the defence to demonstrate the sources of error in the witness's recognition: Starting with the low reliability of estimating body size, the circumstance of masking, the poor lighting conditions at the crime scene, the impact of the weapon focus effect, as well as the stress level and the passage of time.

'If one comes to the conclusion that the witness is sufficiently reliable with regard to the description of the person, this will also have to be taken as a basis for her observation that the perpetrator had a cross-shaped scar on his right thigh.

'This is a physical feature that the accused does not have and therefore excludes him as the perpetrator.

'At the end of the hearing of evidence, it will not be possible to establish that the defendant sitting here is responsible for the offence committed against Hazel Behan. As in the other cases, he will have to be acquitted.'



Time will tell just exactly how the court will react to the evidence placed before it but I think refuting the evidence of a mark on the suspect's thigh might be tough going.

Snip
... CB, is said to have had surgery on his thigh to remove a birthmark following an attack on a woman.

The victim described the birthmark to officers who then allegedly found scarring in the spot.

It was claimed that the scar was found on an earlier scan of the convicted rapist.

"When Brueckner was examined during his current imprisonment they found a scar where the birthmark should have been," a source told The Sun.

"They then went back through the records and found a body scan of Brueckner done by German investigators.

"Crucially, photos of his entire body were taken and at that time he had a significant birthmark on his left upper thigh at hip level."
 
I assume its an as yet unknown defence witness who was/is familiar with HB
That's as good a guess as any and not one that even occurred to me given that FF has no doubt whatsoever that HB suffered the violation she claimed.
Snip
In his rebuttal of the indictment, FF conceded that HB who has waived her anonymity, was raped and 'went through something terrible that night'.

I certainly did not associate her in any way with the person described "as a quasi-diabolical person".

So thanks for trying to explain but for me what FF is saying is still as clear as mud and I think despite what he says about HB's veracity it is coming over to me at this early stage of the trial that a bit of victim blaming is in the offing. That is probably why I thought it odd and didn't get it originally.
 
That's as good a guess as any and not one that even occurred to me given that FF has no doubt whatsoever that HB suffered the violation she claimed.
Snip
In his rebuttal of the indictment, FF conceded that HB who has waived her anonymity, was raped and 'went through something terrible that night'.

I certainly did not associate her in any way with the person described "as a quasi-diabolical person".


So thanks for trying to explain but for me what FF is saying is still as clear as mud and I think despite what he says about HB's veracity it is coming over to me at this early stage of the trial that a bit of victim blaming is in the offing. That is probably why I thought it odd and didn't get it originally.
We really don't know anything about her, other than how she has been portayed in the press.
FF's main line of defence has to be to undermine the credibility of witnesses and I have no doubt he'll attempt that in any way he can.
 
I assume its an as yet unknown defence witness who was/is familiar with HB

I wonder if 'co-plaintiff' is a correct translation of what FF said? Who else, in the case of HazelB would be bringing action against CB apart from HazelB? I don't understand this at all -

Although there is a witness statement in the files from a person close to Mrs Behan who accuses the co-plaintiff of having made up the whole incident and describes the co-plaintiff as a quasi-diabolical person.'

I feel something's got lost in transation here.
 
I wonder if 'co-plaintiff' is a correct translation of what FF said? Who else, in the case of HazelB would be bringing action against CB apart from HazelB? I don't understand this at all -



I feel something's got lost in transation here.
Might co-plaintiff refer to the 5 trials being bundled together ?
 
Might co-plaintiff refer to the 5 trials being bundled together ?

This seems specific to HaB, as it's referring specifically to her case. FF is clearly not accusing HaB of making up her ordeal, only suggesting his client was not responsible for it. Why would any of the other plaintiffs be giving witness statements in the case of HaB? This has to be a translation error.

ETA. Ah. Just read it again and yes, I think you're right, the co-plaintiff ref must be to HaB herself, co-plaintiff as in one of the three plaintiffs bringing cases against CB (I'm excluding the two unknown victims as those two don't have plaintiffs, only a pair of witnesses). Such clumsy writing.

That makes a bit more sense.

'Quasi-diabolical' though? That's a bit of an unlikely and unexpected turn...
 
Last edited:
This seems specific to HaB, as it's referring specifically to her case. FF is clearly not accusing HaB of making up her ordeal, only suggesting his client was not responsible for it. Why would any of the other plaintiffs be giving witness statements in the case of HaB? This has to be a translation error.

ETA. Ah. Just read it again and yes, I think you're right, the co-plaintiff ref must be to HaB herself, co-plaintiff as in one of the three plaintiffs bringing cases against CB (I'm excluding the two unknown victims as those two don't have plaintiffs, only a pair of witnesses). Such clumsy writing.

That makes a bit more sense.

'Quasi-diabolical' though? That's a bit of an unlikely and unexpected turn...
Unexpected certainly.
 
I wish we had an official transcript of today's hearing, one that just documents what was said by all parties, instead of having to rely upon and plough through these ill-written tabloid click-bait interpretations of what was said.

I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that HaB is being presented as an unreliable witness.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if 'co-plaintiff' is a correct translation of what FF said? Who else, in the case of HazelB would be bringing action against CB apart from HazelB? I don't understand this at all -



I feel something's got lost in transation here.
I agree there is quite a bit of room for mistranslation causing confusion.
It is straightforward enough from other reports.

Snip

Scar on the thigh should exclude Christian B. as the perpetrator

"You're scared, aren't you?" the defendant is said to have asked the tied up woman after two rapes. After that, he whipped the young woman and, with a knife in his hand, asked her to kneel in front of the sofa. At that moment, the witness was scared to death, the chief prosecutor said. She thought he was going to cut off her head. The rapist packed up his things and fled. The witness still suffers psychologically today, and scars in the hollows of her knees remind her of being tied up with clothesline-like ropes.

Regarding this accusation, the defense attorney said that the witness had certainly experienced something terrible that night: a masked man had forced her to have sex. She was subjectively convinced that it was Christian B. However, there are sources of error. The witness had described a cross-shaped scar on the perpetrator's thigh. This excludes his client as a perpetrator. "The person who committed this act was not the accused," FF said.
 
I wish we had an official transcript of today's hearing, one that just documents what was said by all parties, instead of having to rely upon and plough through these ill-written tabloid click-bait interpretations of what was said.

I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that HaB is being presented as an unreliable witness.
Frustrating, isn't it, but does any court provide daily transcripts of proceedings ?
Mostly we have to relying on 3rd party interpretation of events, translated from German into English, subject to reporter or editorial bias.
 
Frustrating, isn't it, but does any court provide daily transcripts of proceedings ?
Mostly we have to relying on 3rd party interpretation of events, translated from German into English, subject to reporter or editorial bias.

Well they do in the UK in the sense that court reporting is allowed. I followed the Lucy Letby trial from the daily court transcripts reporting.

No idea what the deal is in Germany but we know the international media at large is present at this trial because of the MM association. Surely there must be someone there who's actually there to cover and record the trial that's actually happening as opposed to the trial the MM-obsessed tabloids keep pointlessly and click-baitingly pushing.
 
I wonder if 'co-plaintiff' is a correct translation of what FF said? Who else, in the case of HazelB would be bringing action against CB apart from HazelB? I don't understand this at all -



I feel something's got lost in transation here.
Co plaintiff could mean the other 4.
 
Well they do in the UK in the sense that court reporting is allowed. I followed the Lucy Letby trial from the daily court transcripts reporting.

No idea what the deal is in Germany but we know the international media at large is present at this trial because of the MM association. Surely there must be someone there who's actually there to cover and record the trial that's actually happening as opposed to the trial the MM-obsessed tabloids keep pointlessly and click-baitingly pushing.
I followed the Ashley Dale murder trial on here, unlikely to get the same coverage .
 
I wish we had an official transcript of today's hearing, one that just documents what was said by all parties, instead of having to rely upon and plough through these ill-written tabloid click-bait interpretations of what was said.

I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that HaB is being presented as an unreliable witness.
The inference given is that it is a witness who knows HeB ,that says she's Quasi-diabolical' and it's in the files handed to the defence .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
222
Guests online
3,162
Total visitors
3,384

Forum statistics

Threads
595,693
Messages
18,030,988
Members
229,740
Latest member
dahliaf
Back
Top