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.
Will wait to see if this indeed true , we know the HB rape was omitted and there is conflicting reports on whether the DM was reported by the PJ or the BKA found it themselves
I don't see how they could have found it without cooperation from the PJ
 
Will wait to see if this indeed true , we know the HB rape was omitted and there is conflicting reports on whether the DM was reported by the PJ or the BKA found it themselves
The BKA were investigating CB from 2016, after the box factory search. In 2017 HeB gives OG CB’s name and tells them he is a rapist. At this point, the BKA provide specifics about the offences HeB witnessed on video to the PJ. DM matches these specifics and her case file is shared with the BKA. HaB’s case was obviously not close enough to the BKA’s brief for it to be shared - review what we know about DM’s case and HaB’s, they’re different.
 
I don't see how they could have found it without cooperation from the PJ
Absolutely, it would have been impossible. What is the clear identifying thread between them? Blacked out swimming goggles. My opinion.
 
Will wait to see if this indeed true , we know the HB rape was omitted and there is conflicting reports on whether the DM was reported by the PJ or the BKA found it themselves
I imagine this was confirmed by mr Grimms testimony the other day. It was pretty clear to me tbh
 
The BKA were investigating CB from 2016, after the box factory search. In 2017 HeB gives OG CB’s name and tells them he is a rapist. At this point, the BKA provide specifics about the offences HeB witnessed on video to the PJ. DM matches these specifics and her case file is shared with the BKA. HaB’s case was obviously not close enough to the BKA’s brief for it to be shared - review what we know about DM’s case and HaB’s, they’re different.

Why do you think the DM and HB cases are different ? Both assaults filmed and victims tortured and beaten with a metal rod .
 
Why do you think the DM and HB cases are different ? Both assaults filmed and victims tortured and beaten with a metal rod .
The BKA likely asked for crimes similar to the one HeB described - elderly victim, beaten with a flexible metal object, wearing blacked out swimming goggles. Why do you think this is a match for HaB?
 
Age is not a reason to dismiss the HB case. Similarities I see are home invasion,masked sexual assault , torture, extreme violence, filmed
I’m not dismissing it, rather I’m asking you to consider the context. BKA have info from HeB. They share it with the PJ and give a date range from 1996 to 2017. Think about how many crimes were committed over that period. There is good reason that the PJ provided DM’s case file and not HaB’s.

This does not mean that the latter was not a severe crime. It just didn’t match the details that the BKA provided. Yet now, we are being asked to accept that they are similar enough that they must have been committed by the same offender.

This is difficult for me to accept. And, there is no other significant evidence that points to CB being the culprit.
 
I’m not dismissing it, rather I’m asking you to consider the context. BKA have info from HeB. They share it with the PJ and give a date range from 1996 to 2017. Think about how many crimes were committed over that period. There is good reason that the PJ provided DM’s case file and not HaB’s.

This does not mean that the latter was not a severe crime. It just didn’t match the details that the BKA provided. Yet now, we are being asked to accept that they are similar enough that they must have been committed by the same offender.

This is difficult for me to accept. And, there is no other significant evidence that points to CB being the culprit.
We also don't know what the details were that HaB t gaveo the PJ in 2004 as we only know what she later told the BKA. She may not have given enough for the PJ to make any match with the DM rape.
 
Last edited:
The BKA were investigating CB from 2016, after the box factory search. In 2017 HeB gives OG CB’s name and tells them he is a rapist. At this point, the BKA provide specifics about the offences HeB witnessed on video to the PJ. DM matches these specifics and her case file is shared with the BKA. HaB’s case was obviously not close enough to the BKA’s brief for it to be shared - review what we know about DM’s case and HaB’s, they’re different.
Snip
CB's defence team have filed repeated petitions for the charges to be dismissed.

On Wednesday, they said HB’s original testimony to German police should be dismissed as the officer who conducted the English-language interview was not qualified to do so. This was dismissed by the court, as were their previous claims that CB cannot expect a fair trial in Germany due to the publicity around the MM case.

CB's defence team have pulled every trick in the book in the hopes of allowing their client to avoid the due process of the German court.
Their endeavours have been listened to and with the exceptions of
  • causing delay with the jurisdiction complaint
  • having the alderwoman removed on the first day of the trial
have all resulted in being received with a pinch of salt. Whether or not they have succeeded in having any of the called witnesses being discarded I've no idea. But I don't think they have missed making pejorative statements concerning most if not all. Absolutely classic they even had a previous trial judge called :rolleyes:
 
Why do you think the DM and HB cases are different ? Both assaults filmed and victims tortured and beaten with a metal rod .
She realised the man, who filmed the attack on a video camera, was “aroused by this power and control” and that he “didn’t like me” HB Rape survivor 2004

‘He enjoyed torturing me’ DM Rape suvivor 2005

Not only was the MO of the rapist of 2004 almost identical with the MO of the rapist of 2005, the affect the ordeal had on each was similar.
  • both women suffered pain inflicted by the instruments the rapist brought with him
  • both women experienced real terror and feared for their lives throughout their ordeal
  • both women suffered lifelong trauma physically and mentally
 
I’m not dismissing it, rather I’m asking you to consider the context. BKA have info from HeB. They share it with the PJ and give a date range from 1996 to 2017. Think about how many crimes were committed over that period. There is good reason that the PJ provided DM’s case file and not HaB’s.

This does not mean that the latter was not a severe crime. It just didn’t match the details that the BKA provided. Yet now, we are being asked to accept that they are similar enough that they must have been committed by the same offender.

This is difficult for me to accept. And, there is no other significant evidence that points to CB being the culprit.

Fortunately it won't be down to us to decide guilt or innocence based on our opinion. That will be for the German court and the evidence put before the judges - who have the overall picture - to decide.
My opinion
 
Fortunately it won't be down to us to decide guilt or innocence based on our opinion. That will be for the German court and the evidence put before the judges - who have the overall picture - to decide.
My opinion
Your opinion is correct and I for one will be quite satisfied with the result, whatever it might be.
I hope others can say the same.
 
Fortunately it won't be down to us to decide guilt or innocence based on our opinion. That will be for the German court and the evidence put before the judges - who have the overall picture - to decide.
My opinion
I’ll leave claims of guilt to the media, HCW and some people on here.

I was explaining that the reason the PJ didn’t provide HaB’s case file to the BKA was because there are obvious differences between the two offences. The DM case file was given to the BKA because it was a very clear match to HeB’s statement.

To me, this shows that the HaB crime could have been committed by a different offender - the police did not see a matching MO when searching for similar crimes.
 
I’ll leave claims of guilt to the media, HCW and some people on here.

I was explaining that the reason the PJ didn’t provide HaB’s case file to the BKA was because there are obvious differences between the two offences. The DM case file was given to the BKA because it was a very clear match to HeB’s statement.

To me, this shows that the HaB crime could have been committed by a different offender - the police did not see a matching MO when searching for similar crimes.
That is your opinion to which you are entitled. Mine is that it is obvious that the MO of the 2004 and 2005 rapes are almost identical including the signature of
  • illegal home invasion
  • coming prepared with his rape kit
  • creeping up on the women one while sleeping the other working on her computer
  • binding of the women
  • terrorising the women
  • stealing from the women
  • going out of his way to humiliate the women
  • hurting the women physically and mentally one carrying scars behind her knees for life; the other having suffered broken bones during the attack. Both women battered and bruised and physically tortured
  • fetish and bizarre dressing up fixation of the perpetrator
  • cowardly beating up and threatening behaviour towards both women using a bladed object
  • subjecting both women to sexual invasion of the worst and most degrading kind; the younger one raped repeatedly and tortured over a period of appx four hours, the older one for appx a third of that timescale
  • the rapes of both women were filmed from start to finish using a camera carried in and set up by the rapist
If nothing else it must be highly unusual for a rapist to carry filming equipment with him to his intended crime scene and set it up as was done in both the 2004 and 2005 rapes.
 
Last edited:
I think there is decent evidence that CB is guilty of the 3 rapes but I wonder if it rises to the criminal standard. MOO
 
I’m not dismissing it, rather I’m asking you to consider the context. BKA have info from HeB. They share it with the PJ and give a date range from 1996 to 2017. Think about how many crimes were committed over that period. There is good reason that the PJ provided DM’s case file and not HaB’s.

This does not mean that the latter was not a severe crime. It just didn’t match the details that the BKA provided. Yet now, we are being asked to accept that they are similar enough that they must have been committed by the same offender.

This is difficult for me to accept. And, there is no other significant evidence that points to CB being the culprit.

This kind of defence that the prosecution had tunnel vision and didn't investigate the case properly can be effective. It'd be interesting to know the similarities of the other convictions. MOO
 
Snip
CB's defence team have filed repeated petitions for the charges to be dismissed.

On Wednesday, they said HB’s original testimony to German police should be dismissed as the officer who conducted the English-language interview was not qualified to do so. This was dismissed by the court, as were their previous claims that CB cannot expect a fair trial in Germany due to the publicity around the MM case.

CB's defence team have pulled every trick in the book in the hopes of allowing their client to avoid the due process of the German court.
Their endeavours have been listened to and with the exceptions of
  • causing delay with the jurisdiction complaint
  • having the alderwoman removed on the first day of the trial
have all resulted in being received with a pinch of salt. Whether or not they have succeeded in having any of the called witnesses being discarded I've no idea. But I don't think they have missed making pejorative statements concerning most if not all. Absolutely classic they even had a previous trial judge called :rolleyes:

Just to note that the defence moving to exclude evidence is a fundamental part of due process. Attacking the evidence of process grounds is the big half of the job IMO.
 
This kind of defence that the prosecution had tunnel vision and didn't investigate the case properly can be effective. It'd be interesting to know the similarities of the other convictions. MOO
Which other convictions?
 
That is your opinion to which you are entitled. Mine is that it is obvious that the MO of the 2004 and 2005 rapes are almost identical including the signature of
  • illegal home invasion
  • coming prepared with his rape kit
  • creeping up on the women one while sleeping the other working on her computer
  • binding of the women
  • terrorising the women
  • stealing from the women
  • going out of his way to humiliate the women
  • hurting the women physically and mentally one carrying scars behind her knees for life; the other having suffered broken bones during the attack. Both women battered and bruised and physically tortured
  • fetish and bizarre dressing up fixation of the perpetrator
  • cowardly beating up and threatening behaviour towards both women using a bladed object
  • subjecting both women to sexual invasion of the worst and most degrading kind; the younger one raped repeatedly and tortured over a period of appx four hours, the older one for appx a third of that timescale
  • the rapes of both women were filmed from start to finish using a camera carried in and set up by the rapist
If nothing else it must be highly unusual for a rapist to carry filming equipment with him to his intended crime scene and set it up as was done in both the 2004 and 2005 rapes.
This reads like an application for a job at the Olive Press.

The fact remains that the PJ examined cold rape cases and identified the DM case. Clearly they looked very carefully to find matching cases.

They didn’t see a match with HaB’s case . Why not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
1,460
Total visitors
1,643

Forum statistics

Threads
597,056
Messages
18,058,094
Members
230,196
Latest member
kellyb26
Back
Top