Germany/Portugal - Christian Brueckner, 27 @ time of 1st crime (2004), charged with sexual assault crimes, Praia de Rocha, Portugal. #3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mail 2020.

The woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, claimed that Brueckner repeatedly assaulted her daughter and would also launch violent attacks against her, adding: 'He hit me when he was drunk or in a foul mood. He was very aggressive.'



In court under oath.

Asked by the prosecution if she noticed Brueckner was interested in her daughter, she replied: “Not at all, otherwise I wouldn’t have done that. He just said he found her cute and said she could be a model.” She said Brueckner spent time alone with her daughter when they went out on dog walks.

He wasn’t threatening, otherwise I wouldn’t have allowed it,” the mum told the court. “I never had any cause to not let her go.” She said Brueckner was often drunk and would boast about raids he had carried out while living in Portugal. “He said he went into houses where people were sleeping,” she said. “He had tights over his head and had goggles on top. All this was not really for me, the idea of going past people who were sleeping, wearing goggles. I thought, ‘who does this?’.”



Sources Mail and Mirror above.
 
So was this woman is the only one witness for today? TIA!

Next on Friday, April 19th
 
That doesn't appear to be what she said under oath, unless its incomplete reporting by Fricker
I have feeling this may be another of CB girlfriends? Doesn’t make sense that there was no mention of the abuse and subsequent conviction. Surely if it was today’s witness wouldn’t have painted CB in a normal light ? Confusing as the timeline is very similar .
 
Am I missing something, can't see any mention of a crime against the child or mother.
The EAW was for a crime CB committed in 2013

Revealed: CB was jailed for sexually abusing his ex-girlfriend's five-year-old daughter in a public park

  • CB assaulted ex-girlfriend's daughter, aged five, in public park
  • He took graphic photographs later discovered on his digital camera and laptop
  • The attack took place in 2013 when CB was living in northern Germany
While in Braunschweig, CB ran a kiosk selling drinks and snacks. He was accused of assaulting the woman he lived with, NM, who was not the mother of his victim.

During a raid on his flat, police seized a laptop and other devices on which they found the photographs.

Analysis of the images allowed the officers to identify the scene of the attack and the girl, who had moved to another part of Germany with her mother.

By then, however, CB had fled to the Algarve in Portugal, where he had been living intermittently since the mid-1990s.

German authorities issued an EU-wide arrest warrant, but it was four years before officers in Portugal seized him after responding to reports that he had exposed himself to children at a park about 40 miles from Praia da Luz.
 
I have feeling this may be another of CB girlfriends? Doesn’t make sense that there was no mention of the abuse and subsequent conviction. Surely if it was today’s witness wouldn’t have painted CB in a normal light ? Confusing as the timeline is very similar .
Maybe the previous abuse, for which CB was convicted, cannot be mentioned in case it influences the judges? The important evidence from this witness is that she confirmed CB mentioned his use of swimming goggles & tights in addition to breaking into apartments on the Algarve naked. This backs up in part what MT & HB have mentioned.
 
Just had a quick check . CB assaulted a 5 year old on 16th June 2013 , house raided Feb 7 2014. AP was the mother of the girl assaulted. When officers scoured the Casio Exilim they found 391 child abuse images . On a separate tom tom they found 68 videos of child abuse not involving CB but stills of children in various playgrounds in Portugal.
 
@misty48 I did think that but today’s witness mentions a 3 year old (nearly 4) and AP’s daughter was 5, all a bit confusing.If it was AP speaking today I’m sure she’d speaking somewhat differently.
 
Seems disjointed, one week they have witnesses regarding the unidentified rapes, the next it's exposure in a playground now it seems to back corroborating about a mask and goggles, still if it works.
 
@misty48 I did think that but today’s witness mentions a 3 year old (nearly 4) and AP’s daughter was 5, all a bit confusing.If it was AP speaking today I’m sure she’d speaking somewhat differently.
It is confusing and I'd be interested in hearing how FF cross-examined her, if he did.
 
@misty48 I did think that but today’s witness mentions a 3 year old (nearly 4) and AP’s daughter was 5, all a bit confusing.If it was AP speaking today I’m sure she’d speaking somewhat differently.
What's confusing is both met him in 2013, one describes him as drunk and threatening the other saying when drunk he wasn't threatening.
 
@misty48 I did think that but today’s witness mentions a 3 year old (nearly 4) and AP’s daughter was 5, all a bit confusing.If it was AP speaking today I’m sure she’d speaking somewhat differently.

I think we're just at the mercy of inadequate and inaccurate reporting. It's unfortunate and frustrating for those of us trying to follow and make sense of this case but I think we should just assume that the confusion and lack of clarity we're seeing in the reporting is really not a reflection of what's actually happening in court, where all the facts are at hand and where the judge/s will ensure that all witness 'anomalies' are held up to the light and given a thorough seeing to.

We should trust that, I think, and not get bogged down and distracted by agenda-driven, tabloid nonsense that has no interest in or care for the truth.

If ever a case needed daily court transcripts though, this one does.
 
Last edited:
Seems disjointed, one week they have witnesses regarding the unidentified rapes, the next it's exposure in a playground now it seems to back corroborating about a mask and goggles, still if it works.
As there is no jury to lead by the nose, there is no need for the witnesses to be heard in any particular sequence. The judges have all the evidence and statements in front of them and only need to clarify what has been already stated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
1,357
Total visitors
1,495

Forum statistics

Threads
597,037
Messages
18,057,948
Members
230,193
Latest member
Secretbird24
Back
Top