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.
The issue being, the premises were previously searched under a search warrant, nothing was found, a secondary search at a later date was which FF claims was not done under a search warrant, did the woman police officer compromise the chain of custody by digging up the sd cards etc with out warrant or was it done as part of a search?

I don't think the issue is chain of custody - i think FF is trying to attack probable cause. We are groping in the dark a bit because we don't have the detailed reporting yet.

I think what he is suggesting is that the police woman pulled a fast one by conducting an illegal search to find something suspicious, then arranging for a civilian to 'find' it and call it in. Then they have cause for the big search. Obviously you can't do that.

It might be hard to prove that of course.

However this would explain a lot about the hold up in the MM case. They worry that the search won't stand up, but they can use the knowledge gained there to try to find the hard evidence that will stand up.

IMO this issue is likely not that important for the HaB case.
 
It's not as if the first police officer on the scene dug everything up by herself - or is it? There were 100 officers involved, presumably that can't happen without the chain of command issuing correct instructions. JMO

Burying nearly anything in the ground probably is actually illegal waste disposal, which gives grounds to start investigating, but not without calling it in, I'd have thought.
Not sure that disposing of waste on your ow property is illegal or a criminal offence.
I have buried a number of cats in my garden over the years. Burying a dog on private property should not result in police intervention, so I think it likely that the policewoman did an illegal search before informing her senior officer.

What bearing that will have on proceedings remains to be seen
 
I don't think the issue is chain of custody - i think FF is trying to attack probable cause. We are groping in the dark a bit because we don't have the detailed reporting yet.

I think what he is suggesting is that the police woman pulled a fast one by conducting an illegal search to find something suspicious, then arranging for a civilian to 'find' it and call it in. Then they have cause for the big search. Obviously you can't do that.

It might be hard to prove that of course.

However this would explain a lot about the hold up in the MM case. They worry that the search won't stand up, but they can use the knowledge gained there to try to find the hard evidence that will stand up.

IMO this issue is likely not that important for the HaB case.
Like you say without the details we don't know but what do the Buchs and images have to do with the trials anyway but they must be somewhere along the line, FF is trying to show that the investigation does not pass scrutiny in some parts and shouldn't be included.imo.
 
Like you say without the details we don't know but what do the Buchs and images have to do with the trials anyway but they must be somewhere along the line, FF is trying to show that the investigation does not pass scrutiny in some parts and shouldn't be included.imo.
I think it could be used to demonstrate that CB has these sorts of sexual fantasies so could very likely follow through and commit such crimes
 
Like you say without the details we don't know but what do the Buchs and images have to do with the trials anyway but they must be somewhere along the line, FF is trying to show that the investigation does not pass scrutiny in some parts and shouldn't be included.imo.
The defence may be nit-picking in recognition of the fact that they do not have rebuttal evidence with which to argue any of the five cases on behalf of their client.

Their only hope is to have evidence excluded and to do that apparently all they have to do is convince the presiding judge.
My opinion


Up until now I have been hugely impressed by the German system; but I see this aspect as a flaw in the system which is possibly detrimental to plaintiffs whose right to a fair trial is as valid as that of the defendant.

A case can be built on the nuances of the collected evidence taken together. The independent judge who is unaware of the overall picture may remove the keystone to a case by excluding and thus weakening one part of the whole.
 
I think it could be used to demonstrate that CB has these sorts of sexual fantasies so could very likely follow through and commit such crimes
The question being then if these books were seized in 2016 how does that equate to what happened prior, how is the date of writing determined unless he kept a diary of dates.
 
The question being then if these books were seized in 2016 how does that equate to what happened prior, how is the date of writing determined unless he kept a diary of dates.
Word documents have date of creation or last modification. Not sure a Word document can be password-secured, so may not be as secure as say a PDF file.
 
The question being then if these books were seized in 2016 how does that equate to what happened prior, how is the date of writing determined unless he kept a diary of dates.
I would guess that some of the writing explains crimes in detail that they know he has committed eg DM, or someone tied to a wooden post in a farmhouse.

There will also be other crimes described in equal detail that do not have known victims. The appeal was in part to try and bring forward other victims, IMO.

I think that MM or a very similar crime has to be in there.

I imagine it’s pretty incriminating and twisted reading but without any supporting physical evidence it’s going to be hard to seperate real life from fantasy.

I think it forms a key part of the prosecution’s case so if FF has the opportunity to kick it out on a technicality, he will.
 
Word documents have date of creation or last modification. Not sure a Word document can be password-secured, so may not be as secure as say a PDF file.
While word docs can be password protected and the properties give date info, I imagine it’s the content that links to past crimes. HCW, I think suggested they were autobiographical.
 
While word docs can be password protected and the properties give date info, I imagine it’s the content that links to past crimes. HCW, I think suggested they were autobiographical.
In which case date of creation/modification could be important as anything post 2016 might be dubious. IMO
 
I would guess that some of the writing explains crimes in detail that they know he has committed eg DM, or someone tied to a wooden post in a farmhouse.

There will also be other crimes described in equal detail that do not have known victims. The appeal was in part to try and bring forward other victims, IMO.

I think that MM or a very similar crime has to be in there.

I imagine it’s pretty incriminating and twisted reading but without any supporting physical evidence it’s going to be hard to seperate real life from fantasy.

I think it forms a key part of the prosecution’s case so if FF has the opportunity to kick it out on a technicality, he will.
I guess we'll find out soon enough, but how does/ did FF find out about a possible illegal search, is there a record of it one wonders.
 
I guess we'll find out soon enough, but how does/ did FF find out about a possible illegal search, is there a record of it one wonders.
Conjecture, but FF will be as capable of reading media reports as the rest of us and will have reconised the potential illegality. Easy enough for a lawyer to look into and see if worth pursuing.
 
I read some time ago in relation to another case, that there could be objection to data which had already been used in another investigation and became time barred.

At the time I thought it was nonsense.

But perhaps not since the proviso does exist in some instances. Maybe this is what the defence song and dance is all about?

Snip

Legal basis and scope of public prosecutor data retention

The legal basis for the storage and handling of the data can be found in §§ 483 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The standards generally regulate that and for what purposes the storage of data is permissible. What exactly is stored is determined by the individual public prosecutor's office itself in a so-called establishment order.

In addition to the collection and processing of data for the purposes of ongoing criminal proceedings pursuant to Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to Section 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, data may also be stored for the purposes of future criminal proceedings. Furthermore, according to § 485 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, data may also be stored for the purposes of case management.

Duration of data storage by the public prosecutor and obligation to review

In principle, data stored for the purposes of criminal proceedings must be deleted at the end of the proceedings. Exceptions to this are the aforementioned storage of data for the purposes of future criminal proceedings as well as for case management.

Data stored for the purposes of future criminal proceedings shall be deleted if it is determined that they are no longer needed for the purposes of future criminal proceedings. The audit is carried out every ten years. However, in the event of a definitive termination of proceedings (§ 170 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, § 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and § 153a of the Code of Criminal Procedure after fulfilment of the condition), a shorter review period of three years applies.

Data that has been stored for the purposes of transaction management is not to be deleted until it is no longer necessary to store it for transaction management.
 
I guess we'll find out soon enough, but how does/ did FF find out about a possible illegal search, is there a record of it one wonders.

Challenging search warrants/searches is a pretty standard thing for defence to do. Generally they attack the grounds written in the original warrant affidavit - though i am not sure exactly how this works in Germany. It should be noted it is pretty difficult to get evidence excluded on this basis.
 
Having thought a little about the case so far, I think it will come down to single focus

It seems to be common cause that the rape of the american woman, and HaB rape now charged are committed by the same attacker. There are too many unusual signatures of the attack for them to be different people.

FF is saying, that therefore CB must be excluded from both, because he does not have the mark that HaB states the attacker has.

The problem is that CB was already convicted in the previous case, including via forensics, and in general there is a legal principle (at least in the UK and US) that the previous conviction are determinative of that issue and can't be relitigated. The previous court also found that the testimony of the two witnesses as regards the video they watched was reliable.

For this reason, even if HaB is wrong about the mark on the attacker - i think CB is quite likely to be convicted. It seems highly unlikely there is some other attacker out there who did the HaB rape but not the one CB is already convicted of.

Whether the Court can make a finding inconsistent with the previous verdict i do not know.

At the end of the day though, it seems this case won't tell us much about MM.
 
Having thought a little about the case so far, I think it will come down to single focus

It seems to be common cause that the rape of the american woman, and HaB rape now charged are committed by the same attacker. There are too many unusual signatures of the attack for them to be different people.

FF is saying, that therefore CB must be excluded from both, because he does not have the mark that HaB states the attacker has.

The problem is that CB was already convicted in the previous case, including via forensics, and in general there is a legal principle (at least in the UK and US) that the previous conviction are determinative of that issue and can't be relitigated. The previous court also found that the testimony of the two witnesses as regards the video they watched was reliable.

For this reason, even if HaB is wrong about the mark on the attacker - i think CB is quite likely to be convicted. It seems highly unlikely there is some other attacker out there who did the HaB rape but not the one CB is already convicted of.

Whether the Court can make a finding inconsistent with the previous verdict i do not know.

At the end of the day though, it seems this case won't tell us much about MM.

The five cases for which CB is currently being tried are stand alone assaults each one of which will be judged on its own merits as was the DM case for which he is currently doing time.

I agree the available evidence regarding the assault perpetrated on HB will be judged on its merits. It owes nothing to any other case short of establishing the perpetrator's MO which was what initially alerted HB.

There is an unknown quality about whether or not the Portuguese authorities checked their files covering the period in question for similar crimes. One is of the opinion that such a prolific offender as CB probably left quite a trail in his wake, certainly more than the five cases which the Germans have uncovered.

Time might tell.
 
There is the MM thread also ..


I had also seen article and posted it there ..
 

I think this may be a very interesting trial because we really do not know exactly what evidence will be presented to the court.

It has been suggested that CB was not alone when he allegedly exposed himself to children in a playground which resulted in his arrest.
It would certainly explain why his vehicle was not found at the scene as his companion would have removed it for his own transportation.

Snip
A PLUCKY policewoman who arrested Madeleine McCann suspect in 2017 says police tried to locate a ‘blonde man’ who was with him that night


Off-duty officer VV revealed in a new book that she and her colleagues searched around the area trying to find the potential accomplice.

It came after she arrested CB...

“He looked so familiar and I knew I had seen him before,” she revealed in the book, My Search for Madeleine, by Olive Press editor Jon Clarke.

“It was then I realised he hadn’t come alone and I’d seen him and his friend at one of the bars in the square.

“Other parents also remembered he had been chatting to another tall blonde man.”

... she managed to call in colleagues.

“I asked him where his friend was and he just smiled and wouldn’t say anything. He wouldn’t tell us where he was staying either.”

She continued: “We searched all around for his friend, but it was clear he had completely vanished. He must have taken the car or van.”
 
I think this may be a very interesting trial because we really do not know exactly what evidence will be presented to the court.

It has been suggested that CB was not alone when he allegedly exposed himself to children in a playground which resulted in his arrest.
It would certainly explain why his vehicle was not found at the scene as his companion would have removed it for his own transportation.

Snip
A PLUCKY policewoman who arrested Madeleine McCann suspect in 2017 says police tried to locate a ‘blonde man’ who was with him that night


Off-duty officer VV revealed in a new book that she and her colleagues searched around the area trying to find the potential accomplice.

It came after she arrested CB...

“He looked so familiar and I knew I had seen him before,” she revealed in the book, My Search for Madeleine, by Olive Press editor Jon Clarke.

“It was then I realised he hadn’t come alone and I’d seen him and his friend at one of the bars in the square.

“Other parents also remembered he had been chatting to another tall blonde man.”

... she managed to call in colleagues.

“I asked him where his friend was and he just smiled and wouldn’t say anything. He wouldn’t tell us where he was staying either.”

She continued: “We searched all around for his friend, but it was clear he had completely vanished. He must have taken the car or van.”
If this particular case is as clear cut as it appears, why was he not prosecuted at the time ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
77
Guests online
3,840
Total visitors
3,917

Forum statistics

Threads
591,365
Messages
17,950,803
Members
228,478
Latest member
NeverΑgain
Back
Top